How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Utah

Step-by-step

This guide shows how to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Utah (US-UT), using jurisdiction-aware rules tied to Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320.

1) Open the correct tool

1. Start at the primary CTA: **/tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Confirm the tool is set to Utah (US-UT). If the interface asks for jurisdiction, choose Utah.

2) Know what Utah’s rule covers (default offer timing)

Utah’s offer-of-judgment framework is set out in Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320. One key operational point for this calculator:

• The statute provides the general framework that “[a] party may make an offer of judgment in a civil action …” (general rule).
• For timing: your notes indicate no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. That means the analyzer should treat offer timing using the general/default period, not a special shorter/longer window by case category.

In practice, the calculator should follow that general/default approach unless you see a specific timing input that changes the model.

3) Enter the amounts the tool needs

The Offer Of Judgment Analyzer typically compares:

• The offer amount (what the offering party proposes)
• The outcome amount (what judgment or recovery ends up being)

In DocketMath, fill in the fields that correspond to these concepts (field names may vary slightly, but the inputs should mean the same thing):

• Offer amount

  • Example: 250,000
• Outcome / judgment / recovery amount

  • Example: 210,000
• Offer date / timing controls (if the interface requests them)

  • Use the date that corresponds to when the offer was actually made.
• Costs inputs (if included)

  • Enter costs only if the tool provides cost-related fields you want included in the modeled outcome.

If the tool asks whether you are modeling the offering party versus the rejecting party, select the role that matches your scenario—this can affect whether the calculator flags the offer as favorable.

4) Confirm Utah is driving the rules

Before running, make sure the jurisdiction indicator shows Utah (US-UT) so the analyzer uses Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320 as its anchor.

• Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320 (source): https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title78B/Chapter6/78B-6-S320.html
• Statute framework text provided: “A party may make an offer of judgment in a civil action...”

Because the tool is intended to be jurisdiction-aware, the output categories (for example, “favorable/unfavorable” flags) should be based on the Utah rule logic applied to your inputs.

5) Run the analysis and read the outputs

Click Calculate / Run analyzer.

Review the results for output sections that commonly include:

• Outcome comparison

  • How the offer amount compares to the modeled judgment/recovery amount.
• Favorable / unfavorable flags

  • Whether the offer is positioned to trigger the statute’s consequences under the Utah logic the calculator models.
• Estimated effect summary

  • A numeric or structured estimate of the modeled consequences.

Sanity check the sensitivity: change one variable at a time (for example, offer amount first, then the outcome amount, then the date) to see what actually drives the output.

6) Iterate with “what-if” variations

Use DocketMath to run a small set of realistic scenarios:

• Increase or decrease the offer amount, then re-run.
• Adjust the judgment/recovery assumption, then re-run.
• Update offer date, if the tool includes timing checks.

A simple approach:

1. Run a baseline with your current assumptions.
2. Run a closer-to-judgment offer.
3. Run a more aggressive offer.
4. Compare which change alters the analyzer’s favorable/unfavorable indication first.

7) Use your results as decision-support (not prediction)

Once the report shows a favorable/unfavorable indication, treat it as a structured snapshot of how the analyzer is applying the Utah framework to your numbers.

Gentle reminder: this is not legal advice. If you need conclusions about litigation strategy or actual statutory eligibility, consider consulting a qualified attorney and compare the calculator’s modeled assumptions—especially any timing and costs handling—to the facts of your case under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320.

Common pitfalls

These issues cause most “unexpected” Offer Of Judgment Analyzer results when running for Utah:

• Forgetting the tool’s timing model

  • If there is an offer date (or timing field), make sure it matches when the offer was actually made.
  • Since no claim-type-specific timing sub-rule was found in the notes you provided, the analyzer should treat timing using the general/default period rather than a special timeline by claim type—unless the tool offers a specific alternative timing mode.

• **Reversing the role (offering vs. rejecting)

  • If the tool asks you to choose which side you’re modeling, picking the opposite role can invert what “favorable” means in the output.

• **Mismatched numbers (apples-to-apples issues)

  • Entering a settlement range as the judgment/recovery amount (or vice versa) can flip the outcome comparison and change the favorable flag.

• **Ignoring costs fields (when present)

  • If the calculator includes cost inputs and you leave them blank (or effectively assume $0), your modeled result may not reflect what you expect.

• Assuming Utah’s timing changes by claim type

  • Your provided note indicates no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. Don’t build your inputs on a special-case timeline unless the tool explicitly supports it.

Quick checklist before you click Calculate

Try it

To run the analyzer now, start here:

• **/tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer

Then use this mini “test plan” to confirm the tool behaves the way you expect under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320:

1. Baseline run

   • Offer amount: 250,000
   • Outcome / judgment / recovery: 200,000
   • Keep everything else at default.

2. Offer shifted toward the modeled outcome

   • Offer amount: 225,000
   • Re-run.

3. Offer shifted away from the modeled outcome

   • Offer amount: 300,000 (or adjust in the opposite direction based on your scenario)
   • Re-run.

4. Timing sanity check (only if there’s an offer date/timing field)

   • Change only the offer date by a small amount (e.g., one week)
   • Confirm whether the outputs change in a way that makes sense.

If results don’t change when you modify fields:

• double-check you’re editing the correct input,
• ensure Utah (US-UT) is still selected,
• and verify you’re reading the correct output section tied to the changed field.

Related reading

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