Spreadsheet checks before running Damages Allocation in Tennessee

What the checker catches

Running Damages Allocation in Tennessee without pre-checking your spreadsheet is a common way to generate internally inconsistent results—especially when a statute’s limitations window determines whether certain claims may still be timely. DocketMath’s damages-allocation checker is meant to flag problems before you calculate allocations.

Below are the main categories the checker looks for, using the Tennessee rule you provided as the default.

• **Timeliness mismatch (Tennessee default general period)

  • The checker applies your Tennessee general/default limitations period: 1 year, using Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-111(e)(2).
  • Your brief states: no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, so the checker treats the 1-year general/default period as the controlling baseline.
  • Practical effect: if your spreadsheet implies a claim falls outside the 1-year window, DocketMath can label that row/entry as potentially impacted by limitations (exact wording can vary by the tool’s output).

• **Date integrity issues (the easiest spreadsheet problems to avoid)

  • Missing or blank date fields (for example, an “incident”/event date and a “filing” or filing-like date that drives the limitations analysis)
  • Dates stored as text (often happens after importing from PDFs)
  • Mixed date formats (e.g., some rows use MM/DD/YYYY while others use DD/MM/YYYY), which can silently shift the computed window

• Inconsistent “amount” fields

  • Negative dollar values where the model expects positive amounts
  • Totals that don’t reconcile with line items (e.g., line items sum to $8,240 but the total cell is $8,050)
  • Rounding inconsistencies across columns (e.g., “amount” is stored to cents, but “allocated” is stored with 0 decimals)

• Allocation logic conflicts

  • Weight/percentage basis problems:

    • A weight column sums to 0
    • The weight column is blank for some or all rows
    • Weights are not numeric (again, common when a column is imported as text)
  • Weight/amount contradictions:

    • A row has a weight but a zero amount (or vice versa), creating allocations that may look plausible while being logically unsupported by the spreadsheet structure

Note / disclaimer: DocketMath’s checker is not a legal opinion tool. It validates spreadsheet structure and applies the Tennessee default limitations logic you configure—here, the 1-year general/default period from Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-111(e)(2).

When to run it

For the best results, run the checker twice in your workflow: once as a preflight step, and again after any edits to core inputs.

Run the checker before importing a spreadsheet into the Damages Allocation workflow. It is especially helpful when you have multiple entries or when a teammate provided the inputs.

1) First run: immediately before you calculate allocations

Run the checker after you finish entering inputs but before you calculate damages allocations. This catches issues early, including:

• Timeliness exposure flags caused by the 1-year default period (per § 40-35-111(e)(2))
• Date parsing errors that can change the computed time window
• Spreadsheet integrity problems (totals, numeric fields, reconciliation) that can otherwise propagate into allocation results

2) Second run: right after you revise the spreadsheet

Re-run after any change that affects dates, monetary figures, or the allocation basis. Specifically:

• Date corrections (even a one-day change)
• Adding or removing claim lines
• Updating weights/percentages
• Adjusting rounding rules (for example, switching from whole dollars to cents)

A small edit can cascade into totals, allocations, and “timeliness impacted” indicators—so the second run helps confirm the sheet remains consistent.

Tennessee-specific workflow tip (based on the brief’s rule)

Because your brief indicates no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, treat § 40-35-111(e)(2) and the 1-year general/default limitations period as the checker’s baseline. If you later identify a category that requires a different limitations rule, update your DocketMath ruleset accordingly; otherwise the checks may be too conservative or too permissive.

Try the checker

Open the DocketMath damages allocation checker here: /tools/damages-allocation.

Before you run, use this quick checklist. Each item corresponds to a common failure mode the checker is designed to detect:

After you run it, review the output categories:

• Hard stops: missing required fields, non-numeric inputs, or totals that cannot reconcile
• Impact flags: entries that appear outside the 1-year window under the default rule from **§ 40-35-111(e)(2)
• Allocation warnings: weight/amount mismatches, rounding-pattern issues, or allocation-basis anomalies

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