Worked example: Settlement Allocator in Philippines

Example inputs

Below is a worked example of using DocketMath’s Settlement Allocator for a Philippines (PH) matter. This is a practical walkthrough of how you can split a lump-sum settlement amount across multiple alleged claims (and non-claim components) using jurisdiction-aware rules.

Scenario (what we’re allocating)

A plaintiff negotiates a total settlement payment of ₱5,500,000. The agreement lists several components:

• Claim A: Damages (contract-based) — ₱0 initially; allocated by allocator
• Claim B: Damages (tort-based) — ₱0 initially; allocated by allocator
• Claim C: Attorney’s fees — ₱0 initially; allocated by allocator
• Claim D: Costs/expenses (filing, process service, etc.) — ₱0 initially; allocated by allocator
• Non-claim payment: “General release consideration” — included in the lump sum but typically not tied to a specific damages bucket unless your settlement agreement specifies otherwise

Weights / amounts used for allocation

Settlement Allocator needs a basis to distribute the lump sum. In DocketMath, you supply relative weights and caps so allocation behaves consistently.

Use these example inputs:

Jurisdiction-aware toggles (PH)

For Philippines budgeting, the tool can apply PH-appropriate conventions for the mechanics of allocation (e.g., ensuring caps are respected, and reserving a non-claim component when requested).

In this example run, we set:

• Jurisdiction: PH
• Allocation model: “Weighted with caps + optional non-claim reserve”

If your actual settlement agreement specifies different category rules (e.g., all amount is designated as damages), you can change those toggles and rerun.

Example run

Let’s run the allocator with the inputs above.

Run the Settlement Allocator calculator using the example inputs above. Review the breakdown for intermediate steps (segments, adjustments, or rate changes) so you can see how each input moves the output. Save the result for reference and compare it to your actual scenario.

Step 1: Compute the non-claim reserve

• Non-claim reserve ratio = 5%
• Non-claim reserve = 5% × ₱5,500,000 = ₱275,000
• Remaining allocable amount = ₱5,500,000 − ₱275,000 = ₱5,225,000

So the allocator will distribute ₱5,225,000 across Claims A–D subject to caps.

Step 2: Allocate by weights (before caps)

Weights total = 50 + 30 + 10 + 10 = 100

Base allocations (weight share × allocable amount):

• Claim A (50%): 50% × ₱5,225,000 = ₱2,612,500
• Claim B (30%): 30% × ₱5,225,000 = ₱1,567,500
• Claim C (10%): 10% × ₱5,225,000 = ₱522,500
• Claim D (10%): 10% × ₱5,225,000 = ₱522,500

Step 3: Apply PH-specific caps (fees and costs)

We provided maximums:

• Max fees (Claim C) = ₱700,000

  • Base fees allocation = ₱522,500 → within cap, no adjustment.
• Max costs (Claim D) = ₱450,000

  • Base costs allocation = ₱522,500 → exceeds cap by ₱72,500.

The allocator caps Claim D at ₱450,000 and then needs to decide what to do with the excess ₱72,500.

In DocketMath’s model for this tool setting (“weighted with caps + non-claim reserve”), the excess is reallocated proportionally among uncapped claim buckets (Claim A and Claim B here). Claim C stays at ₱522,500 because it’s not capped.

Uncapped buckets among remaining: Claim A and Claim B

• Claim A base: ₱2,612,500
• Claim B base: ₱1,567,500
  Total uncapped base = ₱4,180,000

Proportional reallocation of the excess ₱72,500:

• Additional to Claim A = ₱72,500 × (2,612,500 / 4,180,000)
  ≈ ₱72,500 × 0.6256
  ≈ ₱45,352 (rounded by tool)
• Additional to Claim B = ₱72,500 × (1,567,500 / 4,180,000)
  ≈ ₱27,148

Step 4: Final allocation output

Final results (rounded):

Where the tool fits in your workflow

If you’re starting from the negotiation draft and you need a numbers-ready allocation schedule, you can use DocketMath’s calculator at:

• Primary CTA: /tools/settlement-allocator

The workflow that typically works best:

• Put the lump sum in the tool
• Enter weights that match how your settlement agreement frames the categories
• Use caps for fees/costs where your agreement or accounting policy imposes ceilings
• Turn on non-claim reserve if the agreement includes “release consideration” not tied to a specific claim bucket

Sensitivity check

Small input changes can move allocations—especially when caps bind. Here are three targeted sensitivity checks using the same total settlement (₱5,500,000) and same weights (50/30/10/10), changing one factor at a time.

1) Change non-claim reserve ratio (5% → 8%)

• New reserve = 8% × ₱5,500,000 = ₱440,000
• New allocable = ₱5,500,000 − ₱440,000 = ₱5,060,000

Before caps:

• Claim A: 50% → ₱2,530,000
• Claim B: 30% → ₱1,518,000
• Claim C: 10% → ₱506,000
• Claim D: 10% → ₱506,000 (then cap applies at ₱450,000)

Excess from Claim D cap:

• Excess = ₱506,000 − ₱450,000 = ₱56,000

Reallocation to uncapped A & B (base uncapped total = ₱2,530,000 + ₱1,518,000 = ₱4,048,000):

• Extra A ≈ ₱56,000 × (2,530,000 / 4,048,000) ≈ ₱35,000
• Extra B ≈ ₱21,000

Result effect: increasing the non-claim reserve reduces money available for Claims A–D, and the cap-driven reallocation still concentrates the freed amount in A & B.

2) Change costs cap (₱450,000 → ₱600,000)

Keep non-claim reserve at 5%, allocable ₱5,225,000.

Before caps, Claim D base = ₱522,500 which is now below the new cap ₱600,000.

• No cap binding on costs
• So Claim D stays ₱522,500

Result effect: when the costs cap is loosened, Claim A and Claim B stop receiving the “freed” excess ₱72,500 from the original run. That shifts ₱72,500 back into the costs bucket.

3) Change fees cap (₱700,000 → ₱400,000)

Keep non-claim reserve at 5%.

Original base Claim C fees = ₱522,500, but new cap = ₱400,000:

• Fees excess = ₱522,500 − ₱400,000 = ₱122,500

Now, depending on the tool’s reallocation logic for capped fees, the excess is reallocated to uncapped buckets (typically A/B and possibly D depending on whether D is capped). In our original run, D was capped at ₱450,000; it remains capped. Therefore the likely recipient buckets are Claims A and B.

Result effect: a tighter fees cap pushes value away from Claim C and toward Claim A/B, which can matter if your settlement schedule is meant to align with how the parties characterize the payment.

Quick comparison table

These figures summarize the direction of movement
*(If you

Related reading

• Settlement Allocator Guide for Alabama
• Settlement Allocator Guide for Arizona
• Settlement Allocator Guide for Colorado