How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Colorado

Step-by-step

This guide walks you through running the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Colorado (US-CO) using jurisdiction-aware rules. It’s designed for practical use—your goal is to generate an apples-to-apples estimate of how a C.R.C.P. 68 offer might affect costs and case value timing.

1) Open the analyzer for the right tool

1. Go to the primary tool page: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Confirm you’re using the Colorado version of the workflow (jurisdiction should show US-CO / Colorado rules).

2) Enter your Colorado offer details

DocketMath’s analyzer will typically ask for inputs that map to the mechanics of C.R.C.P. 68. Add the following with as much precision as you have:

• Offer amount (the money amount “for the money… specified in the offer”)
• Timing information:

  • Confirm the offer is served more than 14 days before trial (C.R.C.P. 68 uses a 14-day acceptance window, but eligibility depends on being served more than 14 days before trial)
• Costs “then accrued”:

  • Provide the costs you want included (if your interface asks for costs accrued as of the time of service)
• Acceptance window:

  • Select whether the offer was accepted within 14 days or not accepted within 14 days

If the analyzer includes a “scenario toggle” (accepted vs. not accepted), pick the scenario you’re analyzing and keep it consistent across runs.

3) Add any relevant “effect specified in the offer”

Colorado’s rule allows the offer to allow judgment “for the money or property or to the effect specified in the offer.” That means the tool may ask for more than just dollars.

• If your offer is about property or a specific effect (not only cash), enter the closest corresponding fields the analyzer provides.
• If your offer is strictly monetary, you can usually focus on the offer amount and any associated costs fields.

4) Enter trial/posture context the tool uses

Some analyzers use additional fields such as:

• Expected judgment amount (or another comparator figure)
• Interest/costs assumptions (if the tool asks)

Use the best-number approach available:

• If you don’t have a final predicted judgment, run multiple scenarios (for example: conservative/median/aggressive expected judgment values) and compare outputs.

5) Run the calculation

Once inputs are in place:

1. Click Run / Calculate
2. Review the output summary and any cost/judgment impact sections
3. Save, copy, or export the results if DocketMath provides shareable output

6) Validate the key Colorado timing rule before trusting outputs

Colorado’s default mechanics are centered around the 14-day acceptance concept, but with an additional eligibility requirement:

• The rule permits an offer to be served “at any time more than 14 days before trial.”
• If the offer is not accepted within 14 days, the rule’s cost-shifting effects begin (and that is what your analyzer is modeling).

Put differently, the critical gating condition isn’t “how close to trial,” it’s whether the offer was served more than 14 days before trial, and whether it was accepted within 14 days.

Colorado rule anchor: what the analyzer is reflecting

DocketMath’s jurisdiction-aware logic should align with the core rule language in C.R.C.P. 68 (Colorado), including:

• A defending party may serve an offer more than 14 days before trial
• The offer allows judgment to be taken for money or property or to the effect specified
• Costs then accrued are part of the analysis
• If the offer is not accepted within 14 days, the rule’s consequences apply

Colorado source used for rule text:
https://www.coloradosos.gov/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=11041

General/default period (no claim-type-specific sub-rule found):
This guide assumes the rule’s default period applies as described above because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. In practice, that means the relevant gating concept is the rule’s general “more than 14 days before trial” eligibility plus the 14-day acceptance window.

Practical workflow checklist (use this before you run)

• Jurisdiction set to US-CO / Colorado
• Offer served more than 14 days before trial (eligibility check)
• Offer amount entered (or the closest “effect specified” field entered)
• Accepted within 14 days? selected correctly for the scenario being analyzed
• Costs then accrued entered if the tool asks
• Scenario settings updated consistently across runs

Common pitfalls

Colorado’s C.R.C.P. 68 workflow is easy to mis-model when inputs don’t match how the rule operates. These issues most often distort results:

1) Misstating the “more than 14 days before trial” requirement

The rule’s eligibility timing is explicit: “more than 14 days before trial.” If the tool doesn’t enforce this automatically, you must.

• Overstating compliance can make the result look more favorable than it should be.
• Understating compliance can do the opposite—underestimating potential effects.

2) Confusing “accepted within 14 days” with “served 14 days before trial”

These are separate concepts:

• Served date: must be more than 14 days before trial
• Acceptance date: acceptance must occur within 14 days of service (per the 14-day acceptance window)

Mixing them is one of the most common reasons outputs don’t reflect the rule language you intended to test.

3) Leaving “costs then accrued” blank when your model depends on it

C.R.C.P. 68 expressly references “costs then accrued.” If the analyzer includes a costs input, leaving it blank (or using a placeholder) can materially change the economics.

4) Reusing one offer number across multiple scenarios without updating assumptions

If you rerun calculations with:

• a different expected judgment,
• a different scenario selection (accepted vs. not accepted),
• or different timing inputs,

make sure the offer and the scenario inputs remain aligned to what you’re testing.

5) Assuming there’s a claim-type-specific timeline in Colorado

This Colorado run uses the general/default rule period because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. Don’t assume separate deadlines exist for different claims unless you have a specific Colorado rule basis beyond C.R.C.P. 68’s general language.

Try it

Use this quick “single run” method to get comfortable with DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer for Colorado:

1. Set Jurisdiction = US-CO
2. Enter:

   • Offer amount (use your real offer number as the starting point)
   • Days before trial served (ensure it’s > 14)
   • Accepted within 14 days? (choose your scenario)
   • Costs then accrued if your tool asks
3. Click Calculate
4. Review outputs in these places (labels may vary, but the concepts should appear):

   • Estimated economic impact tied to the offer outcome
   • Any cost shifting or judgment comparison summary
5. Run two extra scenarios:

   • Keep the same offer details, but flip acceptance to see sensitivity to the 14-day acceptance concept
   • Adjust expected judgment modestly (for example, ±10%) if the tool allows it

Quick self-check before you rely on the result:

• Does the analyzer reflect the 14-day acceptance concept and the eligibility condition that the offer must be served more than 14 days before trial?
• Do your inputs match those dates exactly (served date, acceptance selection, trial date)?

Related reading

• How to calculate Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in Philippines — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• Worked example: Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in Philippines — Worked example with real statute citations
• Inputs you need for Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in Philippines — Input checklist with sourcing guidance