Inputs you need for Damages Allocation in Arizona
4 min read
Published April 15, 2026 • By DocketMath Team
Inputs you will need
Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Damages Allocation calculator.
Damages allocation is usually where disputes get granular: you’re not just deciding what losses exist—you’re breaking them into buckets that match how the claim is priced and how the proof is organized. In Arizona, the most “jurisdiction-aware” input to plan for early is timing, because Arizona uses a general 2-year statute of limitations as the default baseline for many claims.
Below is the practical checklist of inputs you’ll feed into DocketMath’s damages-allocation calculator.
Primary CTA: /tools/damages-allocation
Core inputs (damages-focused)
Jurisdiction-aware timing input (Arizona SOL)
Even if your tool focuses on allocation mechanics, timing affects which portions are “in scope.” This brief uses Arizona’s general/default timing rule, because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found for this content.
Source for the general SOL reference: https://www.findlaw.com/state/arizona-law/arizona-criminal-statute-of-limitations-laws.html?utm_source=openai
Note: Because this brief uses the general/default period, treat 2 years as the baseline for timing in your DocketMath run unless your situation involves a different, applicable rule outside the scope of this checklist.
Optional but high-impact inputs (to make allocation defensible)
Where to find each input
Use a tight paper trail. The goal is to avoid feeding DocketMath numbers that later fail the “where did this come from?” test.
Most inputs live in the case file, contracts, or docket entries. Dates usually come from the triggering event notice; rates and caps come from governing documents or statute; and amounts come from the ledger or judgment. Record the source for each value so the run is reproducible.
Damages category amounts
Common sources:
Practical tip: keep a separate line for each cost that has a distinct date or supporting document. If two costs fall on different sides of a limitations cutoff, you’ll want that granularity.
Timing inputs (Arizona general SOL baseline)
Start with dates that are usually already in the record:
Then align those dates with the general 2-year timing logic:
Apportionment, offsets, interest (if used)
Pitfall: A single blended “total damages” figure with no dates can break allocation when you apply a 2-year cutoff. If timing matters, split damages by date early—even if you later combine totals for narrative simplicity.
Run it
Once your inputs are collected, run the calculation in DocketMath using the primary CTA: /tools/damages-allocation.
Enter the inputs in DocketMath and run the Damages Allocation calculation to generate a clean breakdown: Run the calculator.
Capture the source for each input so another team member can verify the same result quickly.
Step-by-step workflow
Enter damages categories
Add each category and the associated claimed amount.Add a date to each damages component (or each category if components share a date)
- If DocketMath’s interface supports per-category timing, populate it.
- If not, you can still run allocation using the category-level date—but keep your own schedule more granular so you can adjust quickly if the cutoff changes.
Set Arizona timing inputs for the general/default rule
- Input the key event date
- Input the filing date
- Apply the general 2-year statute of limitations baseline referenced in **A.R.S. § 13-107(A)
Add allocation rules (if applicable)
- If you have apportionment percentages, enter them category-by-category so medical and wage damages can be allocated consistently with your theory.
Include offsets/interest (if your model uses them)
- Enter settlement credits and dates
- Enter interest start date if supported
What the output changes when you modify inputs
Use these changes to sanity-check results:
- Changing the key event date can shift which portions fall inside the 2-year window.
- Changing the filing date can similarly move the cutoff boundary.
- Splitting categories by date often changes the allocation even when the total dollars stay the same, because “in-scope vs. out-of-scope” depends on timing.
- Adjusting apportionment percentages recalculates each actor’s share without necessarily changing the overall in-scope total.
Caution (not legal advice): If your tool shows a reduced “in-scope” damages amount, verify that you’re applying the cutoff to the correct date concept (incident/injury vs. discovery vs. demand). This brief uses the general/default 2-year baseline and does not apply additional claim-type-specific limitations logic.