How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Indiana

Step-by-step

This guide walks you through running Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Indiana (US-IN). The goal is to help you model a jurisdiction-aware estimate for what an offer of judgment can trigger under Indiana’s offer-of-judgment procedure—without turning the tool into legal advice.

1) Open the right DocketMath tool

1. Go to: **/tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Confirm you’re in the Indiana jurisdiction context (US-IN). If the interface has a jurisdiction selector, choose Indiana (US-IN).

2) Gather the minimum inputs

Before you enter anything, collect these numbers and selections (you can plug them in as soon as you have them):

• Offer amount (the dollar figure stated in the offer of judgment)
• Acceptance status:

  • Accepted
  • Not accepted
• Deadline model (how the tool will treat the “not accepted within the time provided” requirement)
• Costs/fees components (only if your workflow includes them):

  • Some users model attorney’s fees and costs separately when their inputs allow it

If you’re not sure which fields to use, start with the basics: offer amount and whether it was accepted. You can refine after you see how the output responds.

3) Enter the offer amount

In the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer, find the field for the offer amount and enter the dollar value exactly as stated (e.g., 25000 for $25,000).

How this affects results: The analyzer uses your offer amount as the reference point for “better/worse than offer” style calculations and any outputs tied to that threshold.

4) Set acceptance timing (or use the analyzer’s default)

Indiana’s statute authorizes serving an offer of judgment, but the trigger depends on whether it’s accepted within the rule-based time period.

Indiana’s default rule framework is grounded in Ind. Code § 34-50-1-1, which states (in relevant part):

• A party may serve an offer of judgment.
• If the offer is not accepted within the time provided by Rule 68 of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, then consequences may follow.

Because your brief indicates no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, you should treat the statute as relying on the general/default period tied to Rule 68—not a special claim category. Use the tool’s Indiana default acceptance window for your first run unless you have a case-specific reason to use a different deadline model.

What to do in the tool:

• If the tool asks for a deadline or day count, enter the time model your scenario assumes.
• If it provides a default tied to the Indiana rule set, use that default for your first run.

5) Run the analysis

Click Analyze (or the tool’s equivalent primary action). The tool should generate outputs showing how the modeled offer interacts with the acceptance status and timing assumptions.

6) Review the outputs and adjust inputs

A good workflow is iterative.

• Change only one input at a time (e.g., acceptance status first, then offer amount).
• Compare outputs side-by-side to see what moves.

What to look for in the results:

• Any “consequence” estimate tied to not accepted within the rule time
• Whether the output logic reflects your selected Indiana (US-IN) jurisdiction setup
• If the tool provides multiple outputs (e.g., different recoverable items or consequence components), confirm those outputs align with the data you entered

Gentle reminder: DocketMath outputs are scenario-based. They can help you explore “what-if” outcomes, but they aren’t a substitute for checking the actual Indiana rules and deadlines that apply to your specific case.

7) Capture a scenario you can reuse

If DocketMath provides a way to save or copy your scenario, do it now. When you return to the case later, rerun analysis if any of the following change:

• the offer amount
• acceptance status
• your understanding of the acceptance timing inputs

Common pitfalls

Offer-of-judgment analysis is mostly about timing. Timing is where mistakes happen. Here are recurring issues when using DocketMath for Indiana:

• Assuming claim-type-specific deadlines exist in Indiana’s base setup

  • Your brief indicates no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found.
  • The statute relies on “the time provided by rule 68” (Ind. Code § 34-50-1-1), meaning you should start with the general/default acceptance window associated with Rule 68 in the tool.

• Mixing up acceptance with service

  • The statute focuses on whether the offer is accepted within the time provided.
  • A service date alone doesn’t necessarily equal acceptance timing.

• Entering an offer amount that doesn’t match the offer instrument

  • Even small numeric mismatches can shift threshold-based calculations.

• Not running at least one “control” scenario

  • If you only model “not accepted,” you may miss how outputs behave when the offer is accepted.
  • Comparing Accepted vs. Not accepted is often the fastest way to validate your inputs.

• Modeling costs/fees without aligning to the tool’s fields

  • If the tool separates costs/fees, enter them into the appropriate inputs.
  • Avoid combining amounts into one field if the tool expects separate values.

• Using the wrong jurisdiction

  • Indiana offer-of-judgment procedures can differ from other states.
  • Always confirm US-IN is selected in DocketMath before running the analyzer.

Try it

Here’s a practical way to test the analyzer quickly and verify that your inputs are driving the correct logic.

Open the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer calculator and follow the steps above: Run the calculator.

Quick two-scenario run (recommended)

Run these back-to-back, using Indiana (US-IN) in both:

• Scenario A (baseline):

  • Jurisdiction: **Indiana (US-IN)
  • Offer amount: $25,000
  • Acceptance status: Not accepted (using the tool’s Indiana default acceptance window tied to Rule 68)

• Scenario B (control):

  • Keep the offer amount and other settings the same
  • Change acceptance status to Accepted

Then compare:

• Does the output show different consequences?
• Do any fields or consequence components tied to “not accepted within the time provided” disappear or switch off when you set Accepted?

What to expect from Ind. Code § 34-50-1-1 in your modeling

Indiana’s general statute authorizes offers of judgment and links key consequences to the rule-based acceptance period:

• Ind. Code § 34-50-1-1 (Justia link): https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-34/article-50/chapter-1/section-34-50-1-1

  • Statute text (summary): A party may serve an offer of judgment, and if the offer is not accepted within the time provided by Rule 68, consequences may follow.

So, in the tool:

• When you switch between Accepted and Not accepted, you should see the analyzer’s outcome logic change in response to that statutory trigger.
• If you only see “not accepted” logic even after toggling to Accepted, double-check that you changed the correct acceptance status and/or acceptance timing field (some tools separate status from timing inputs).

Run a sensitivity check on the offer amount

After Scenario A vs. B behaves as expected, adjust only the offer amount:

• Run with $10,000
• Run with $50,000

Goal: confirm results scale (or that threshold behavior changes) with the offer amount in a way consistent with the analyzer’s design.

Related reading

• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Alabama
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Arizona
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Colorado