Inputs you need for Damages Allocation in North Dakota

Inputs you will need

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Damages Allocation calculator.

Damages allocation in North Dakota often turns on whether the dispute involves multiple parties and multiple damage theories (for example: breach plus damages to different categories), and whether you must apportion fault or treat some portions as joint/several versus severable in your workflow. DocketMath helps you structure the numbers so you can run the allocation calculator consistently.

Before you click /tools/damages-allocation, gather these inputs:

• Parties you are allocating

  • Names (or identifiers) for each defendant/actor and, if relevant, any other contributing entities you intend to include in allocation.

• **Damage categories (at minimum, line items)

  • Examples: economic damages, property damage, medical bills, lost income, restoration costs, contractual damages.
  • Enter each category’s total amount, and then specify how that category should be allocated in DocketMath.

• **Total damages (cross-check)

  • A single “overall damages” number that should equal the sum of your categories (within rounding). This is your quick integrity check before you trust outputs.

• **Fault allocation inputs (if your case requires it)

  • Percentages or weights for each party’s share of responsibility (e.g., 30% / 70%).
  • If you only have relative measures (like “Party A is more blame”), translate them into percentages/weights that sum to 100%.

• Apportionment basis

  • Which damages categories are tied to fault allocation versus which categories should be treated differently in your workflow.
  • This is usually where “theory matters,” because different damage categories may not be handled identically.

• **Timeline and rate inputs (only if your damages category needs them)

  • Dates for accrual (e.g., injury date, breach date) and for end of calculation (e.g., judgment date or settlement date).
  • Any interest/discount rate your calculation workflow requires for time-based components.

• **Claims type tagging (workflow control)

  • Mark which line items are based on which theory (breach, tort, statutory component) so DocketMath can apply the correct jurisdiction-aware mapping.

• Concessions and exclusions

  • Amounts you are excluding from the allocation set, such as:

    • already-paid amounts,
    • settlements you’re netting out,
    • damages you’ve withdrawn.
  • Tip: track offsets/concessions in a separate “excluded” column in your spreadsheet so you don’t accidentally double-net.

Where to find each input

Use your case documents and your damages spreadsheet as the source of truth. Here’s where each input typically comes from:

• Parties list

  • Complaint and amended pleadings
  • Docket entries or case caption in the court’s filings

• Damage categories and totals

  • Your damages calculation exhibits (often spreadsheets or itemized summaries)
  • Expert reports (economic damages schedules, medical totals, repair estimates)
  • Settlement demand package (if you have a consolidated “total damages” table)

• Fault allocation percentages

  • Proposed verdict forms, jury instructions workups, or mediation statements
  • If you’re synthesizing from multiple sources, document the rationale in your spreadsheet so you can revise quickly

• Apportionment basis

  • Your issue list: which claims are submitted to the factfinder and which are handled separately
  • Any agreed framing in pretrial orders (including how damages are grouped)

• Timeline and rate inputs

  • Contract dates or breach dates (from the contract, correspondence, or allegations)
  • Medical/invoice dates and transaction dates (for economic totals and timing)
  • Interest rate references you already used in your calculations

• Claims type tagging

  • Count-by-count review of the complaint and amended complaint
  • Any order narrowing theories

• Concessions and exclusions

  • Settlement agreements and satisfaction documents
  • Offsets and prior payments schedules
  • Your internal “net damages” memo or calculation assumptions

A practical workflow:

• Start with your existing damages spreadsheet
• Break it into categories that map cleanly to what you’ll enter in DocketMath
• Add a fault split worksheet (even if it’s a placeholder—keep it explicit)
• Reconcile: make sure the sum of categories matches Total damages before running the tool

Run it

Once your inputs are assembled, run the calculation using DocketMath:

1. Open /tools/damages-allocation
2. Enter the parties you want included in the allocation set
3. Add each damage category as a line item
4. Provide the allocation basis:

   • For categories that should follow fault, connect them to your fault percentages/weights.
   • For categories treated differently in your workflow, map them to the correct basis/type option in the tool.
5. Confirm totals:

   • DocketMath will typically sanity-check category sums against overall totals (especially if you provide both).
6. Review outputs and capture:

   • Allocated amount per party by category
   • Aggregated totals
   • Any time-based effects if timeline/rate inputs are used

Here’s what to watch for while you run it:

Quick checklist before submission-ready numbers

Interpreting the allocation results

After DocketMath returns results, compare:

• Allocated totals per party against your fault model
• Category-level outputs against how you tagged each theory/category
• Net impacts of scenario edits (e.g., updating a fault split or removing an excluded category)

If something looks “off,” the most common cause is a mapping mismatch (a category allocated using the wrong basis) rather than a math error in the totals.

Gentle note: This kind of allocation is fact- and theory-dependent. Use the tool to structure your calculations and sanity-check your inputs, and confirm assumptions with the specific context of your case.

Related reading

• Damages Allocation Guide for Alabama — Comparative Fault Rules
• Damages Allocation Guide for Alaska — Comparative Fault Rules
• Damages Allocation Guide for American Samoa — Comparative Fault Rules