How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for South Carolina

Step-by-step

This guide walks you through running Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for South Carolina (US-SC), using jurisdiction-aware rules tied to the South Carolina Offer of Judgment Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-400.

1) Open the analyzer in DocketMath

1. Go to the primary tool page: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Confirm you’re using the correct jurisdiction context:

   • Select South Carolina (US-SC) if the tool prompts for jurisdiction.
   • If the tool remembers your last jurisdiction, double-check it before entering numbers.

2) Enter the offer details the analyzer needs

In most Offer of Judgment workflows, DocketMath will ask for inputs that map to the statute’s mechanics—typically:

• Offer amount (the $ amount stated in the written offer)
• Claimed/assessed judgment value for comparison (often the “expected” or “actual” judgment amount, depending on what stage you’re modeling)
• Parties’ roles:

  • Are you modeling an offer by the plaintiff or defendant?
• Filing/offer timing inputs (if the tool includes them)

South Carolina’s statute is triggered by filing a written offer directed to opposing counsel. Under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-400, the offer must be in writing, signed by the offeror or counsel, and directed to opposing counsel, offering to allow judgment in the offeror’s favor (or allow judgment against the offeror) for a stated sum.

3) Use South Carolina’s default “claim-type” rule behavior

The tool includes jurisdiction-aware logic. For South Carolina, your workflow should assume:

• No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found.
• That means the analyzer uses the general/default period defined by the statute (rather than different timing periods for different claim categories).

Practically, this affects how the analyzer interprets whether an offer is filed at a qualifying point in the case timeline (if the UI includes a timing question). When you don’t have claim-category distinctions, keep your inputs aligned to the default timing the analyzer assumes for US-SC.

4) Confirm timing assumptions if the tool asks for dates

If DocketMath includes fields for “offer date,” “judgment date,” or a response window, enter the best available dates you have.

For South Carolina, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-400 contemplates offers “in any civil action” and changes consequences based on whether the offeree “fails” to accept within the statutory framework. The analyzer uses your dates (when provided) to determine whether the model scenario hits the statute’s consequences.

5) Run the calculation

Click the analyzer’s run/compute button.

At this point, DocketMath will apply South Carolina’s jurisdiction rules derived from S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-400 to estimate the offer impact—most often including:

• Whether the modeled outcome resembles the statutory “accepted vs. not accepted” consequence structure
• How the offer amount compares to the judgment value you supplied

6) Review the outputs and sensitivity points

Once results display, focus on:

• Offer vs. judgment comparison: if the judgment is closer to or exceeds what the offer represented (depending on who offered), the analyzer’s conclusion may change.
• Timing effect: if your scenario includes response/decision timing, those inputs can change the offeree treatment.
• Party role: the same dollar amount can produce different implications depending on whether your scenario is “offeror/plaintiff” vs “offeror/defendant.”

Use the tool to test “what-if” variations—e.g., increasing the offer amount or changing the assumed judgment figure—and watch which outputs change.

7) Capture your scenario notes (so you can reuse them)

Before you move to the next run, record:

• Offer amount used
• Judgment/target amount used
• Whether you modeled plaintiff-offered or defendant-offered
• Any dates entered

This helps you build an internal comparison set (e.g., Offer A vs. Offer B) without losing track of what changed between runs.

Common pitfalls

Below are the issues that most often cause misleading outputs when running the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in US-SC.

• Using the wrong jurisdiction

  • South Carolina rules apply under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-400, and results can differ substantially from other states’ offer-of-judgment frameworks.
• Forgetting that South Carolina uses a general/default timing approach here

  • The tool should not be treated as having claim-type-specific timing sub-rules for South Carolina based on the jurisdiction data you’re working from.
• Swapping “offer amount” and “judgment value”

  • If you enter the judgment amount into the offer field (or vice versa), the comparison can invert.
• Modeling at the wrong stage

  • If you’re predicting an outcome before a final judgment, make sure the “judgment value” input reflects what you’re trying to estimate (e.g., a reasonable expected figure vs. a hypothetical cap).
• Leaving timing inputs blank when the UI expects dates

  • DocketMath may apply defaults you didn’t intend—especially in scenarios where the statute’s “fails” acceptance framework can turn on procedural posture.
• Not matching party role to the offeror

  • Some scenarios interpret consequences based on whether the party making the offer matches plaintiff or defendant posture.
• Over-relying on a single run

  • A one-number change (like raising an offer by $5,000) can change the analyzer’s comparison outcome. Run a couple of nearby scenarios to understand sensitivity.

Try it

Follow this quick “muscle memory” path to run a complete scenario in under 3 minutes:

1. Open /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Set jurisdiction to South Carolina (US-SC)
3. Enter:

   • Offer amount (the sum stated in the offer)
   • Modeled judgment value (the number you’re comparing against)
   • Role (offeror as plaintiff or defendant, if the UI supports it)
   • Dates (if provided—use best-known dates)
4. Click Run
5. On the results page, change only one variable:

   • Increase the offer amount by a modest increment (for example, 5–10%)
   • Re-run immediately
6. Compare results:

   • Did the “offer impact” flip or remain consistent?
   • Did the timing-related output change?

If you want, you can also experiment with multiple offers (Offer A / Offer B / Offer C) using the same judgment value to see which offer positions the case outcome in the analyzer’s most favorable zone under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-400.

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