How to calculate Settlement Allocator in North Carolina

Quick takeaways

• North Carolina settlement allocation (Settlement Allocator) commonly follows the Rule 23 “default period” framework under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 23.
• DocketMath’s Settlement Allocator translates the selected framework into a repeatable, auditable calculation you can run across matters.
• The most important inputs are the allocation period, the eligible bucket definitions, and the amount measures you use to determine each bucket’s share.
• If you don’t have a claim-type-specific sub-rule that changes the period or method, you should use the general/default period from Rule 23 (don’t substitute a claim-type-specific theory).
• Always reconcile totals: allocated amounts should sum to the intended total settlement amount after rounding.

Inputs you need

Before you run DocketMath → Settlement Allocator, collect the following. Even if some values already exist in a spreadsheet, treat them as “jurisdiction-aware fields” because the allocator behavior depends on them.

Core inputs (required for the calculator)

• Allocation period
  The time window the allocator uses for including/weighting eligible data.
• Total settlement amount
  The “pot” to be distributed across eligible buckets.
• Eligible participant buckets
  The buckets that receive shares (e.g., parties, beneficiaries, or other defined groups).
• Each bucket’s amount measure, such as:

  • claimed damages component,
  • weighted factor amount,
  • or any other valuation/measure you’ve already computed for each bucket.

Rule 23-driven inputs (jurisdiction logic)

• Rule 23 period selection
  Whether you are applying the Rule 23 default period for the applicable framework.
• Class/case structure indicator (if applicable)
  Any internal indicator you use to determine eligibility during the allocation period.

Data quality inputs (strongly recommended)

• Decimal precision (how many places you round to)
  This prevents “last-digit” mismatches between teams.
• Rounding rule
  Whether you round each line item and then reconcile, or compute first and reconcile at the end.

How the calculation works

DocketMath’s Settlement Allocator is intended to compute allocation shares and allocated amounts per bucket based on the North Carolina period approach tied to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 23.

1) Select the Rule 23 “default period”

For North Carolina, use the general/default period associated with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 23.

• If you do not have a claim-type-specific override, you should:

  • use the general/default period consistently across all buckets, and
  • document that this is the basis because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified in the provided guidance.

This selection is not cosmetic—it changes what data points are considered part of the allocation window, which in turn changes the bucket measures and final shares.

2) Normalize bucket values into allocable weights

For each eligible bucket, DocketMath converts your amount measure into a weight.

A typical structure is:

• Weight for bucket i
  = (bucket amount measure for i) ÷ (sum of all bucket amount measures)

Then:

• Settlement allocated to bucket i
  = (Weight for bucket i) × (Total settlement amount)

If your workflow already includes multipliers or weighting before entering values into DocketMath, those effects should be reflected in the amount measure you input. DocketMath then allocates based on what you provide.

3) Apply rounding deterministically

Settlement allocations involve money, so rounding can affect who effectively gets the “last dollar/cent.”

In practice, DocketMath-style calculations are usually performed by:

• computing exact proportions/shares,
• rounding bucket line items using your configured precision,
• and reconciling any remainder in a deterministic way (commonly by order of buckets and/or a reconciliation rule).

The exact method depends on the tool’s configured approach, so make sure you review the output fields that show reconciliation behavior.

4) Produce outputs you can audit

When you run DocketMath’s Settlement Allocator, you should expect outputs such as:

• Allocation share % per bucket
• Allocated amount per bucket
• Total allocated amount (should reconcile to the settlement total after rounding)
• A period basis statement indicating that the Rule 23 default period was used (when that is the configuration)

If your inputs include multiple categories, you may see separate allocation lines per category, which can simplify review.

Worked mini-example (illustrative mechanics)

Assume:

• Total settlement: $1,000,000
• Allocation period: Rule 23 default period (no claim-type-specific override found)
• Two eligible buckets and amount measures:

  • Bucket A: $250,000
  • Bucket B: $750,000

Weights:

• Bucket A = 250,000 ÷ (250,000 + 750,000) = 25%
• Bucket B = 750,000 ÷ 1,000,000 = 75%

Allocated amounts:

• Bucket A = 25% × 1,000,000 = $250,000
• Bucket B = 75% × 1,000,000 = $750,000

If the bucket measures were derived using a different period window, the weights would change—even if the total settlement amount stayed the same—so the allocation period selection directly affects the allocation.

Common pitfalls

Settlement allocation errors typically arise from period selection, bucket definitions, or rounding/reconciliation.

Pitfall 1: Switching to a claim-type-specific assumption without identified support

If you’re tempted to apply a specialized claim-type theory (especially one that changes the period or method) without a clear basis, pause first.

Pitfall 2: Period mismatch across buckets

Ensure every bucket uses the same allocation period basis. Common failures include:

• one bucket’s measure includes data outside the intended window,
• another bucket’s measure excludes data that should be included,
• the spreadsheet used different start/end dates.

Even small differences can distort weights and shift allocations.

Pitfall 3: Inconsistent bucket “amount measures”

DocketMath allocates based on inputs. If you mix measure definitions—for example:

• Bucket A uses pre-mitigation damages while Bucket B uses post-mitigation damages, or
• one bucket uses one valuation model and another uses a different model—

then the math can be “correct” but the allocation is based on incomparable inputs.

Pitfall 4: Rounding causes reconciliation failures

Before finalizing:

• verify the allocated amounts sum to the total settlement (after reconciliation),
• confirm the decimal precision and rounding rule match team standards.

Quick checklist:

• Allocation period is set to the Rule 23 general/default period
• All buckets use the same period basis
• Bucket amount measures are consistent in definition
• Shares + allocated amounts reconcile to the total pot
• Rounding method is consistent across all line items

Sources and references

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 23 (civil procedure—class actions)
  https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_1A/GS_1A-1,_Rule_23.html

Next steps

1. Open DocketMath’s Settlement Allocator tool: /tools/settlement-allocator
2. Enter:

   • the total settlement amount, and
   • the amount measure for each eligible bucket.
3. Set the allocation period to the Rule 23 default period basis for North Carolina.
4. Run the calculation and review:

   • bucket share percentages,
   • allocated dollar amounts,
   • and the final reconciliation total.
5. If results look “off,” troubleshoot in this order:

   • period alignment → bucket measure definitions → rounding/reconciliation.

If you want a general workflow reference while entering data, also review DocketMath guidance here: /tools/settlement-allocator.

Gentle reminder: This is a practical explanation of a calculator workflow, not legal advice.

Related reading

• How to calculate Settlement Allocator in Ohio — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• How to calculate Settlement Allocator in Philippines — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• Worked example: Settlement Allocator in Philippines — Worked example with real statute citations