Inputs you need for Damages Allocation in Colorado

Inputs you will need

Damages allocation in Colorado isn’t just about producing a dollar figure—it’s about splitting liability across damage categories and time periods using the right assumptions. With DocketMath’s damages-allocation calculator (jurisdiction: US-CO), you’ll typically get more consistent, jurisdiction-aware results when you collect the inputs below before you run the model.

Gentle note: This checklist is for practical preparation and scenario modeling—not legal advice.

A. Case-level allocation inputs (what’s being allocated)

• Claim / damages categories to allocate (for example: medical expenses, wage loss, property damage, pain & suffering, future damages)
• Total claimed amount (or totals per category) that the allocation should be based on
• Allocation method selection you want to use inside the DocketMath workflow (make sure you keep the same method across scenario runs)
• Comparative fault inputs if fault is contested (how you want to model fault apportionment)

B. Timeline inputs (when damages happened)

• Date range for past damages (example: 01/01/2022–12/31/2023)
• Projected period for future damages (example: 01/01/2024–12/31/2027), if you are allocating future amounts
• Breakpoints for changes over time (example: wage changes after a job switch; medical treatment phases that alter the monthly/during-period amount)

C. Monetary inputs (how damages were calculated)

• Past economic damages totals (at minimum by category)
• Future economic damages totals (at minimum by category)
• Past non-economic damages assumptions or allocation weights (only if your selected DocketMath approach includes them)
• Discounting / present value method (only if your damages include future amounts and you want a present-value style allocation)

D. Fault and apportionment inputs (who caused what)

Colorado uses comparative fault concepts in many allocation scenarios. To feed DocketMath accurately, gather:

• Defendant fault percentage(s) you want to test (examples: 20%, 55%, 80%)
• Plaintiff fault percentage (or comparative-fault scenario totals)
• Multiple defendants / multiple parties allocation inputs (if you need to split fault among more than one actor)

Pitfall to avoid: If you enter comparative fault percentages that don’t match your intended scenario (for example, plaintiff 30% + one defendant 60% without addressing the remainder), the calculator may output results that appear plausible but don’t reflect the scenario you meant to model.

E. Offsets, payments, and settlement inputs (what reduces what)

If you’re modeling net exposure (or want allocations that reflect payments), gather:

• Insurance payments you want treated as offsets (by category, such as past medical or wage replacement)
• Settlement amounts (by party and/or by category, if available)
• Liens you plan to account for (medical liens/subrogation—only input them if you intend to model them explicitly)
• Attorney-fee treatment assumptions (only if your workflow includes this; keep it consistent across runs)

F. Interest and timing inputs (where “when” matters)

Even when you’re focused on allocations, timing can affect how DocketMath treats periods. If your workflow includes these features:

• Earliest date damages began (for past-damages start)
• Relevant cut-off date for the allocation you’re preparing
• Interest start rule selection in DocketMath (if included in the calculator flow)

Where to find each input

Rather than hunting across dozens of documents, build a single “inputs table” from the records you already have. The goal is to connect each model input to a document source so you can justify and revise assumptions quickly.

Discovery & medical records (for medical-related damages)

• Medical bills / statements → totals for past medical expenses
• Treatment chronology in records → timeline breakpoints for phases of care
• Work status letters (when available) → wage loss windows

Employment / financial records (for wage loss)

• Pay stubs + employment records → baseline wages and wage change points
• Tax documents (if part of your approach) → earning capacity verification
• Benefits documentation (short-term disability, unemployment, etc.) → offsets/payments

Property evidence (for property-related damages)

• Repair estimates / invoices → past property damage totals
• Replacement cost support → future property damages (less common, but sometimes used)

Legal filings and case theory (for fault assumptions)

• Pleadings → claimed theories and damages categories
• Disclosures / witness or expert materials → comparative fault positions you intend to model
• Trial briefs / motion practice → how the parties frame allocation scenarios

Settlement documents (for offsets and payments)

• Settlement agreements → amounts and terms
• Release language → whether settlement is categorical or global
• Lien letters → amounts you plan to model as offsets

Run it

1. Open DocketMath’s damages allocation workflow: /tools/damages-allocation
2. Confirm the jurisdiction setting is Colorado (US-CO).
3. Enter inputs in this practical order to reduce rework:

   • Totals by category (past + future, if applicable)
   • Timeline ranges (past range start/end; future projection period)
   • Comparative fault scenario (plaintiff % and defendant %)
   • Offsets/payments (if modeling net exposure)
   • Interest/timing options (only if your workflow includes them)

What your outputs typically change (sanity-check guide)

Use these quick expectations after each run:

Run multiple scenarios (recommended workflow)

Because fault percentages and offsets frequently vary by assumption, model at least 2–3 scenarios and compare the output ranges:

• Scenario A: Low defendant fault (baseline)
• Scenario B: Mid defendant fault
• Scenario C: High defendant fault + added offsets

If any scenario produces unexpectedly large swings, revisit:

• timeline boundaries,
• whether amounts are entered as gross vs net,
• and whether fault percentages match your intended scenario structure.

Related reading

• Browse the blog