Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Utah

What this calculator does

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer calculator.

DocketMath’s Offer of Judgment Analyzer (Utah) helps you estimate the potential financial impact of making (or responding to) an offer of judgment in a Utah civil case governed by Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320.

In plain terms, the statute creates a cost-shifting mechanism when parties make timely settlement offers and the case result is sufficiently favorable to the offeror. This calculator is designed to help you model the direction and magnitude of those effects so you can compare options before filing.

What you can analyze with the Offer of Judgment Analyzer:

• Whether timing meets the “at least 14 days before trial” requirement under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320(1)(a).
• Whether the offer’s terms align with the statutory framework (the calculator focuses on the cost/fee consequences that the statute authorizes).
• How changing key numbers (offer amount, judgment amount, costs, and fees) changes the estimated outcome.
• The best/worst comparison set (e.g., “if judgment lands above X” versus “if judgment lands below X”).

When to use it

Use DocketMath’s Offer of Judgment Analyzer when you’re evaluating the practical stakes of an offer under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320 and you have enough case numbers to model likely outcomes.

Common times to run the calculator:

• Before serving an offer to understand what the fee/cost pressure could look like if the other side doesn’t accept.
• After an offer is served to estimate whether the offer is likely to pressure the other party effectively (based on where you think the judgment may land).
• When costs and fees are material to the case economics—because § 78B-6-320(2) places limits on recoverable costs and fees, which can change the “real” consequence of winning or losing after an offer.

Timing matters because the offer must be made at least 14 days before trial to qualify under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320(1)(a).

Here’s a quick checklist of “run it now” triggers:

Step-by-step example

Below is a concrete Utah scenario showing how you might use DocketMath’s tool. Adjust the numbers to match your case.

Scenario facts (Utah civil action)

• Trial is scheduled for September 30, 2026
• You plan to serve an offer on September 10, 2026
• Claimed damages: you expect the case value may produce a judgment in the $120,000–$160,000 range
• Estimated litigation spend:

  • Costs (recoverable categories): $18,000
  • Attorney’s fees: $52,000
• Your offer strategy:

  • You want to analyze offering $130,000 as an offer of judgment under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320

Step 1: Check the timing rule (14 days before trial)

Under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320(1)(a), the offer must be made at least 14 days before trial.

• Trial date: September 30, 2026
• Offer date: September 10, 2026
• Days between: 20 days

✅ Timing passes § 78B-6-320(1)(a) (because 20 ≥ 14).

The analyzer uses this to flag whether your modeled offer date complies.

Step 2: Enter the offer amount and the expected judgment

In the calculator:

• Offer amount: $130,000
• Estimated judgment outcome: run scenarios such as:

  • Scenario A: judgment = $125,000
  • Scenario B: judgment = $135,000
  • Scenario C: judgment = $155,000

Step 3: Enter costs and fees, then apply the statutory limits

Next, input your estimates for:

• Costs: $18,000
• Attorney’s fees: $52,000

The calculator then applies the consequences framework connected to Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320(2), which includes limits on costs and fees recovery.

Because § 78B-6-320(2) restricts what can be recovered, two cases with identical “spend” may have different net recovery—so this is where the analyzer is most useful.

Step 4: Review output comparisons

After running the scenarios, you’ll typically see output structured like:

• Whether the judgment is more favorable than the offer
• An estimated net difference in costs/fees consequence compared to the baseline
• A comparison across the judgment range you entered

Example output interpretation (conceptual)

Assume the analyzer outputs something like:

Your exact numbers will depend on how DocketMath maps the statutory consequence to the specific inputs you provide (offer amount, costs, fees, and any applicable limits).

Step 5: Iterate the offer amount

Try alternative offers (for example):

• Offer at $120,000
• Offer at $130,000
• Offer at $145,000

This helps answer practical settlement questions:

• “How much does the offer need to be to create meaningful pressure if we win by X?”
• “If the expected judgment is only slightly above the offer, is it worth it once limits in § 78B-6-320(2) are considered?”

When you’re done, you’ll have a set of modeled outcomes you can use for strategy discussions.

Common scenarios

Offer of judgment analysis tends to come up in repeating patterns. Here are several that frequently affect the math and the timing gate.

1) Offer served close to trial

Because § 78B-6-320(1)(a) requires service at least 14 days before trial, offers served too late can fail to qualify.

Use the analyzer to test:

• different offer service dates
• the same offer amount, with the timing effect changing eligibility

Checklist:

2) Judgment slightly above/below the offer

Small changes in predicted judgment can swing the cost/fee consequence because the statute’s mechanism focuses on the relationship between the offer and the result.

Model:

• 3 judgment points (e.g., offer − 5%, offer, offer + 5%)
• Compare net consequence after applying **§ 78B-6-320(2)

3) High attorney’s fees, but statutory limits cap recovery

Many parties assume “if we win, we’ll recover all fees.” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320(2) limits recovery, so the “spent vs. recoverable” gap can be material.

Run:

• Costs/fees as estimated
• Then adjust to a lower “recoverable” assumption if you track that internally

4) Costs matter more than you expected

Even if fees are large, costs can affect the statutory calculation. If you track costs by category (filing fees, deposition transcript costs, expert-related costs if applicable), update the inputs so the analyzer isn’t using stale totals.

Quick practice:

5) Comparing “make an offer” vs. “acceptance posture”

If you’re the offeree, you can still use the analyzer to understand leverage. For example:

• If you accept, you give up the possibility of greater recovery.
• If you refuse and you lose on the judgment relationship, the cost/fee consequences can move against you—subject to § 78B-6-320(2) limits.

Tips for accuracy

To get reliable modeling results from DocketMath’s analyzer, focus on input quality. These are the most common causes of inaccurate outputs.

1. Verify the trial date used in the model
   Under § 78B-6-320(1)(a), being at least 14 days before trial is a hard qualification requirement for timing. Small calendar mistakes can flip eligibility.

2. Enter an offer date you can defend
   Use the actual service date. If you’re unsure, run parallel scenarios:

• scenario using the earlier date
• scenario using the later date

1. Use consistent numbers for costs and fees
   Keep one source of truth for:

• costs estimate method (actual invoices vs. forecast)
• fees estimate method (hours × blended rate vs. budgeted flat total)

1. Don’t forget the statutory limits on recovery
   Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-320(2) limits costs and fees recovery. If your input assumes full recovery, the analyzer will correct it only to the extent it has the information needed to apply the limit framework.

2. Run a “range” instead of a single

Related reading

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