How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for West Virginia

Step-by-step

Below is a practical walkthrough for running DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer for West Virginia (US-WV). This tool is designed to help you model the cost-shifting risk tied to offers of judgment under W. Va. Code § 56-4-3—without doing the threshold arithmetic manually.

1) Open the analyzer in DocketMath

1. Open the analyzer using the primary CTA: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Make sure the tool is set to West Virginia (jurisdiction code US-WV) so it applies the correct jurisdiction-aware assumptions.

2) Add the offer details

DocketMath will prompt you for the key inputs that drive the comparison.

In general, you’ll enter:

• Offer amount (the dollar figure offered)
• Who made the offer (if the tool asks)
• Whether the offer was accepted

  • For risk modeling under W. Va. Code § 56-4-3, you’ll typically use not accepted (because the cost-shifting mechanism is triggered when the offer is not accepted).
• Your modeled verdict/award amount (or a verdict range, if the tool supports it)

Most important input (practically): the analyzer compares your modeled verdict amount to the offer amount to determine whether the statutory threshold is met.

3) Enter cost inputs that affect the “liable for costs” result

West Virginia’s offer-of-judgment statute shifts costs if the party who did not accept the offer fails to obtain a verdict more favorable than the offer.

So the tool typically needs:

• Costs incurred by the non-accepting party (or a cost estimate you want it to model)
• Any related cost parameters the UI requests (for example, whether costs are “through judgment,” “to date,” etc.—only enter what the tool asks for)

Use numbers that are consistent with how you’re modeling the case economics. If you compare one scenario using “costs through judgment” and another scenario using “costs to date,” you can accidentally make the results incomparable.

4) Run the calculation

Click Calculate / Analyze (the exact button label may vary by UI version).

DocketMath will:

• Compare verdict amount vs. offer amount
• Apply the West Virginia cost-shifting rule in W. Va. Code § 56-4-3
• Produce an output indicating whether the modeled outcome triggers cost exposure and how much it could be based on your inputs

5) Review the result screen (what changes the outcome)

Under W. Va. Code § 56-4-3, the key idea is a threshold test:

• If the non-accepting party does not get a verdict more favorable than the offer, the non-accepting party “shall… be liable for the costs of the action incurred by the” other party (as reflected in the statute text summary shown by the analyzer).
• If the verdict is more favorable than the offer, then the cost-shifting risk modeled by the analyzer should not be triggered under that threshold comparison.

When interpreting the output, focus on:

• Verdict vs. offer comparison (does the verdict clear the “more favorable” threshold?)
• Whether the scenario triggers the cost-shifting condition
• The dollar impact based on the cost figure(s) you entered

6) Adjust inputs to stress-test outcomes

Once you run your first scenario, iterate to understand sensitivity:

• Increase/decrease the verdict estimate to see when the analyzer’s trigger status changes.
• Change offer amounts if you’re comparing strategic options.
• Update cost assumptions to understand how the magnitude of exposure changes (even when the threshold outcome remains the same).

This is where the analyzer is most useful: turning a legal “more favorable than the offer” concept into a concrete scenario model you can test.

Common pitfalls

West Virginia’s offer-of-judgment analysis is conceptually simple, but it’s easy to wire inputs in a way that produces misleading results.

• missing a required input
• using a stale rate or rule
• ignoring calendar or holiday adjustments
• skipping documentation of assumptions

1) Forgetting the “not accepted” condition

W. Va. Code § 56-4-3 cost-shifting is triggered when an offer is made and not accepted.

• ✅ Use not accepted if your goal is to model cost exposure risk
• ❌ Don’t run accepted scenarios if you’re trying to evaluate whether costs could shift

2) Using the wrong verdict basis

The analyzer compares verdict amount against offer amount.

If you enter:

• a settlement number that doesn’t match what you want treated as the “verdict” outcome in the tool, or
• a number that reflects post-verdict adjustments instead of the amount used for the comparison,
  your threshold evaluation may not reflect the statutory comparison you intended to model.

3) Mis-estimating costs

If you enter incorrect or inconsistent cost inputs, the trigger logic might be correct but the dollar exposure will be wrong.

Common fixes:

• Use consistent time windows (e.g., all costs through judgment vs. all costs to date).
• Include only costs you expect to be included in the categories the tool models.

4) Assuming claim-type-specific offer rules

For West Virginia, this walkthrough uses the general/default rule for the offer-of-judgment cost-shifting analysis under W. Va. Code § 56-4-3.

• ✅ The default applies under W. Va. Code § 56-4-3.
• ⚠️ No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found for this walkthrough; therefore, the general/default period is used clearly as the baseline.

5) Treating the output as legal prediction

The analyzer is a scenario model based on the statute’s cost-shifting logic and your inputs.

• It’s not a prediction of what a judge will rule.
• Don’t treat results as determinative of legal rights in your specific case without legal review.

Try it

Want to run a quick West Virginia scenario?

1. Open **/tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Set:

   • Jurisdiction: US-WV / West Virginia
   • Offer amount: your modeled offer
   • Verdict amount: your modeled verdict (or the amount you want the analyzer to compare)
   • Acceptance: not accepted
3. Enter estimated costs the analyzer should use for the “liable for costs” calculation

Then run the calculation and look for:

• Verdict vs. offer comparison
• A cost-shift triggered / not triggered indicator (based on whether the verdict is more favorable than the offer)
• The dollar impact derived from your cost inputs

A simple validation approach is to run two scenarios:

• Run 1: verdict equals offer amount
• Run 2: verdict slightly above the offer amount
  You should see the trigger status change when you cross the “more favorable” threshold.

Statutory anchor used by the analyzer for this logic:

• W. Va. Code § 56-4-3 (West Virginia offer of judgment; cost liability where the non-accepting party fails to obtain a more favorable verdict)

Statute text link (from the brief’s provided source):

• http://www.legis.state.wv.us/wvcode/ChapterEntire.cfm?chap=56&art=4&section=3

Related reading

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