How Offer Of Judgment Analyzer rules vary in New Hampshire
5 min read
Published July 9, 2025 • Updated April 23, 2026 • By DocketMath Team
Trust release 4
This page has legal or numeric text that still needs claim-level inventory before we can treat it as verified.
What varies by jurisdiction
Offer of judgment rules can change the economics of a case—often through the interest add-on that may be available after an offer and then a trial outcome. With the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath (jurisdiction: New Hampshire, US-NH), the main New Hampshire lever is the statute governing when interest may accrue after an offer.
New Hampshire’s baseline rule (general/default)
New Hampshire provides for interest on the judgment obtained when settlement is not reached before any trial, and the statute ties interest to the offer date:
- Statute: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507:16-b
- Rule (plain English): If a civil action does not settle before any trial, the party who makes an offer of judgment may recover interest on the judgment at a rate of:
- (average prime rate) + 1%
- Timing: from the date of the offer until the judgment is paid
Important default/“general period” clarification:
For New Hampshire, the jurisdiction data provided does not identify a claim-type-specific breakdown (i.e., no special sub-rule was located). That means the analyzer should treat § 507:16-b as the default/general interest window for calculations described in the statute.
Pitfall to avoid: Don’t assume the interest period starts on the filing date or the trial start date. Under § 507:16-b, the interest period is anchored to the date of the offer and runs until payment.
How “jurisdiction rules vary” shows up in DocketMath
When you compare jurisdictions in DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer, variation typically shows up in one or more of these components:
- Interest rate formula (for New Hampshire: average prime rate + 1%)
- Accrual start date (for New Hampshire: offer date)
- Accrual end date (for New Hampshire: until the judgment is paid)
- Trigger condition for the rule (for New Hampshire: applies when settlement is not reached before any trial)
Even if the underlying judgment amount is the same, differences in the interest rate and/or the interest window can materially change the analyzer’s output.
What to verify
Before relying on your DocketMath results for New Hampshire (US-NH), confirm your inputs match what N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507:16-b requires.
- The governing rule or statute for the jurisdiction.
- Any local rule overrides or administrative guidance.
- Effective dates and whether amendments apply.
1) Confirm “settlement not reached before any trial”
The statute’s interest concept is tied to situations where settlement is not reached before any trial.
In analyzer terms, verify the scenario you’re modeling reflects:
- the case proceeded to trial, and/or
- settlement was not achieved before trial began
If the case settled before trial, the § 507:16-b interest concept may not apply as the analyzer assumes for a “no settlement before trial” run.
2) Identify the “offer date” precisely
Because interest runs “from the date of the offer”, the analyzer needs the actual date the offer was made.
Checklist:
3) Understand the interest rate input: “average prime rate plus 1%”
New Hampshire’s statute specifies:
- average prime rate + 1%
In the analyzer workflow, this typically means DocketMath will use some methodology to determine the applicable “average prime rate.” Since prime-rate averaging methods can differ, verify the tool’s approach if you need high accuracy.
Warning: If your offer date is mid-period, an “average” prime-rate approach can produce small differences compared with using a single prime-rate snapshot. Make sure DocketMath’s averaging method matches the scenario you’re trying to model.
4) Confirm the “until the judgment is paid” endpoint
The statute provides that interest runs until the judgment is paid, so your analysis should include an end date that reflects payment.
Checklist:
5) Confirm this is the correct New Hampshire rule (and that it’s the default)
Because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the provided jurisdiction data, treat § 507:16-b as the default/general interest rule for the interest window described above.
Checklist:
- No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the provided rule summary (so the analyzer should use the general default)
To run the calculation, use DocketMath here: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer.
How DocketMath’s outputs change with your inputs (US-NH)
Under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507:16-b, DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer generally responds to these main variables:
| Input you control | Statute connection | Effect on interest total |
|---|---|---|
| Offer date | Interest runs from the date of the offer | Earlier offer date → longer accrual → higher interest |
| Prime-rate assumption/method | average prime rate + 1% | Higher average prime rate → higher interest |
| Payment date (or estimate) | Interest runs until the judgment is paid | Later payment date → longer accrual → higher interest |
Quick sanity-check:
Interest should scale with the time between offer date and payment. A modest change in those dates can noticeably move totals, especially on larger judgment amounts.
Sources and references
Start with the primary authority for New Hampshire and confirm the effective date before relying on any output. If the rule has been amended, update the inputs and rerun the calculation.