Imported from RobertHH-IS/legalcode-skills (skills/legalcode-damages-calculation/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add RobertHH-IS/legalcode-skills --skill legalcode-damages-calculation. Copyright stays with the author.

Using this skill

Before following the workflow, read runtime and evidence requirements. They govern current tool use and source verification when older examples below differ from the connected runtime.

Legalcode Damages Calculation

Disclaimer: This skill provides a framework for AI-assisted damages analysis and calculation in civil matters. It does not constitute legal advice, expert testimony, or a substitute for forensic accounting or economic expert opinions. All outputs should be reviewed by qualified legal counsel and, where applicable, testifying experts licensed in the relevant jurisdiction before use in litigation, arbitration, or settlement negotiations. Damages law varies significantly by jurisdiction, claim type, and procedural posture; verify current applicability before relying on any methodology or figure described here. Statutory and case law references cited from memory carry hallucination risk -- verify against authoritative sources before relying on them.

Purpose and Scope

This skill structures and calculates damages for civil litigation matters, producing defensible, jurisdiction-aware exposure models suitable for:

• Early case assessment (pre-discovery damages framing)
• Settlement negotiation (BATNA/WATNA corridor analysis)
• Expert briefing (organizing inputs for economic/damages experts)
• Motion practice (damages-related dispositive motions and Daubert challenges)
• Trial preparation (damages proof checklist and presentation strategy)

Covers:

• Economic damages: Lost profits, lost revenue, diminution in value, out-of-pocket expenses, cost of repair/replacement, cost of cover, lost wages, lost earning capacity, medical expenses, future care costs
• Non-economic damages: Pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium, loss of enjoyment of life, hedonic damages, reputational harm
• Punitive/exemplary damages: Multiplier analysis, constitutional limits (US), availability and thresholds (UK/AU), aggravated damages distinction
• Statutory damages: Per-violation penalties, minimum/maximum ranges, willfulness multipliers, fee-shifting and cost awards
• Prejudgment/postjudgment interest: Calculation methodologies, statutory rates, compounding conventions
• Mitigation: Duty to mitigate analysis, avoidable consequences, collateral source offsets
• Discounting and present value: Time-value adjustments for future damages streams

Does not:

• Replace qualified forensic accountants, economists, or vocational experts
• Provide binding legal conclusions on recoverability or causation
• Generate final expert reports or sworn declarations
• Apply to criminal restitution (different framework)
• Cover equitable remedies (injunctions, specific performance) -- see separate skills

Related skills:

• legalcode-early-case-assessment -- Overall litigation exposure and strategy
• legalcode-brief-analyzer -- Persuasiveness of damages arguments in briefs
• legalcode-case-timeline-builder -- Chronology supporting damages causation
• legalcode-privilege-review -- Protecting damages analysis work product

Jurisdiction and Governing Law

This skill is jurisdiction-agnostic at baseline. Identify the governing substantive law and forum procedural rules first, then localize all damages analysis accordingly.

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] Localize at minimum:

• Damages caps (statutory or common law)
• Punitive damages availability and constitutional/common law limits
• Non-economic damages caps (medical malpractice, tort reform statutes)
• Prejudgment interest rules (mandatory vs. discretionary, rate source, start date)
• Collateral source rule (traditional, modified, or abolished)
• Mitigation duty scope and burden of proof
• Expert testimony standards (Daubert, Frye, relevance-reliability)
• Fee-shifting and costs rules
• Statutory damages ranges for specific claim types
• Currency and exchange rate treatment for cross-border matters

Reference anchors frequently needed:

United States (Federal):

• Contract damages: UCC 2-706, 2-708, 2-712, 2-713, 2-714, 2-715; Restatement (Second) Contracts 347-356 [VERIFY]
• Tort damages: Restatement (Third) Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm [VERIFY]
• Punitive damages limits: BMW of N. Am. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996); State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003); Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007) [VERIFY]
• Expert standards: Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); FRE 702 (as amended) [VERIFY]
• Prejudgment interest: 28 U.S.C. 1961 (federal); state statutes vary [VERIFY]

United States (State-specific common issues):

• Tort reform caps: CA, TX, OH, FL, and many others have non-economic or total damages caps in certain claims [VERIFY STATE LAW]
• Comparative/contributory fault: Pure comparative (CA, NY), modified comparative (most states), contributory fault bar (AL, DC, MD, NC, VA) [VERIFY STATE LAW]
• Punitive damages caps: Many states cap punitives as multiple of compensatories or absolute dollar amount [VERIFY STATE LAW]

England & Wales:

• Contract damages: Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341; Victoria Laundry v. Newman (1949) 2 KB 528; Transfield Shipping v. Mercator [2008] UKHL 48 [VERIFY]
• Tort damages: Smith v. Manchester (1974) 17 KIR 1 (loss of earning capacity); Heil v. Rankin [2001] QB 272 (non-pecuniary damages tariff) [VERIFY]
• Exemplary/aggravated damages: Rookes v. Barnard [1964] AC 1129; Kuddus v. Chief Constable [2001] UKHL 29 [VERIFY]
• Interest: Senior Courts Act 1981 s.35A; Judgments Act 1838 s.17 (8% post-judgment) [VERIFY]
• Guidelines: Judicial College Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases (16th ed.) [VERIFY]

Australia:

• Contract damages: Commonwealth v. Amann Aviation (1991) 174 CLR 64; Tabcorp Holdings v. Bowen Investments (2009) 236 CLR 272 [VERIFY]
• Tort damages: Todorovic v. Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402 (discount rate); Malec v. JC Hutton (1990) 169 CLR 638 (loss of chance) [VERIFY]
• Statutory caps: Civil Liability Acts in each state/territory (NSW CLA 2002, Vic WRCA 2003, etc.) [VERIFY STATE/TERRITORY LAW]
• Exemplary damages: Gray v. Motor Accidents Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1 [VERIFY]
• Interest: Various state/territory Supreme Court Acts [VERIFY]

Interactive Clarification

This skill uses interactive clarification at key decision points. Rather than assuming context, the workflow pauses and asks when:

• The answer would materially change the damages model structure
• Multiple valid calculation methodologies exist and the user's preference matters
• Jurisdiction-specific rules create forks in the analysis
• Risk tolerance or settlement posture affects the range to present

Use the structured-options pattern wherever marked with CLARIFY below. If the user has already provided the information, skip the question and proceed.

Workflow

Step 1: Accept Matter Inputs

Accept matter information in any of these formats:

• Pleadings/claims: Complaint, statement of claim, demand letter, or arbitration notice
• Case summary: Narrative description of the dispute and claimed harms
• Financial documents: P&L statements, invoices, contracts, medical bills, wage records
• Expert materials: Draft or final expert reports, deposition transcripts
• Prior damages analysis: Earlier exposure models or settlement evaluations

If insufficient information is provided to structure damages, prompt the user to supply:

• Nature of the claims (contract, tort, statutory, mixed)
• Plaintiff/claimant identity (individual, business entity, class)
• Key harm categories alleged
• Available supporting documentation

Step 2: Gather Damages Context

CLARIFY -- Before beginning the analysis, ask the user these questions:

1. What is the purpose of this damages analysis?

   • Options: Early case assessment (pre-discovery), Settlement negotiation corridor, Expert briefing/organization, Motion practice support, Trial preparation, Appellate damages review, Insurance coverage evaluation
   • Why this matters: Purpose determines precision requirements and output emphasis.

2. Which side are you on?

   • Options: Plaintiff/Claimant, Defendant/Respondent, Neutral evaluator
   • Why this matters: Determines whether to emphasize maximizing or minimizing exposure, or presenting balanced ranges.

3. What is the governing substantive law?

   • Options: US federal, US state (specify), England & Wales, Australia (specify state/territory), Other (specify), Multiple/uncertain
   • Why this matters: Damages rules vary dramatically by jurisdiction.

4. What claim types are involved?

   • Options: Contract breach, Tort/negligence, Statutory violation, Fraud, Employment/discrimination, IP infringement, Antitrust, Securities, Personal injury, Professional malpractice, Other (specify)
   • Allow multiple selections.
   • Why this matters: Different claim types have different damages rules, caps, and available categories.

5. What is the procedural posture?

   • Options: Pre-suit, Early litigation (pre-discovery), Active discovery, Expert discovery, Summary judgment phase, Trial imminent, Post-trial/appeal, Arbitration, Mediation/settlement
   • Why this matters: Affects data availability and precision expectations.

6. Are experts already retained or contemplated?

   • Options: Yes - economist/damages expert, Yes - vocational/medical expert, Yes - industry expert, Multiple experts, None yet, Considering retention
   • Why this matters: Determines whether this analysis is initial framing or expert support.

If the user provides partial context, proceed with reasonable defaults but state assumptions explicitly before the analysis.

Step 3: Identify Governing Damages Framework

Based on the claim types and jurisdiction identified:

1. Map claim types to damages categories:

   Claim Type	Typical Damages Categories
   Contract breach	Expectation, reliance, restitution, consequential, incidental
   Tort/negligence	Compensatory (economic + non-economic), punitive (if available)
   Fraud	Out-of-pocket, benefit of bargain, consequential, punitive
   Employment/discrimination	Back pay, front pay, emotional distress, punitive, statutory
   IP infringement	Actual damages, infringer's profits, statutory, enhanced/willful
   Antitrust	Actual damages (trebled), injunctive, costs/fees
   Personal injury	Medical, lost wages, future care, pain/suffering, loss of consortium

2. Identify jurisdiction-specific constraints:

   • Caps on non-economic damages
   • Caps on punitive damages
   • Mandatory trebling or other multipliers
   • Fee-shifting rules
   • Prejudgment interest availability and rate

3. Document the framework in the Glass Box audit trail.

Step 4: Gather Jurisdiction-Relevant Legal Authority

Use legalcode-mcp (if connected) to build a working legal reference file for this damages analysis.

Research process:

1. Identify controlling statutes and case law for each damages category in the governing jurisdiction.

2. Search legalcode-mcp for:

   • Damages calculation standards for the claim types involved
   • Caps, floors, and multipliers applicable in the jurisdiction
   • Leading cases on foreseeability, certainty, and mitigation
   • Expert testimony standards for damages evidence
   • Prejudgment interest rules and rates

3. Save results to a local temporary reference file:

   # Legal Authority Reference -- [Matter Name] Damages Analysis
   
   ## Governing Law: [Jurisdiction]
   
   ## Date Gathered: [date]
   
   ### Damages Standards by Claim Type
   
   - [Claim type]: [Controlling statute/case, damages measure]
   
   ### Caps and Limits
   
   - [Category]: [Cap amount, statutory reference]
   
   ### Key Case Law
   
   - [Case name, citation, holding on damages calculation]
   
   ### Interest Rules
   
   - Prejudgment: [Rate, source, start date rule]
   - Postjudgment: [Rate, source]

If legalcode-mcp is not connected:

• Mark every statutory and case law reference with [VERIFY]
• Note in Glass Box: legalcode_mcp: "Not connected"
• Proceed with general damages principles but flag verification requirements

Step 5: Structure the Damages Model

Build a comprehensive damages model covering all applicable categories.

CLARIFY -- For complex matters with multiple claim types:

• "This matter involves [N] claim types with potentially overlapping damages. Should I build a single integrated model, or separate models by claim type with a reconciliation summary?"
• "Some damages categories may be duplicative (e.g., lost profits under contract and tort). How should I handle overlap -- conservative (no double-counting), aggressive (present full amount under each theory), or present both views?"

5a. Economic Damages

For each economic damages category, build a calculation framework:

Lost Profits / Lost Revenue

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] Lost profits requirements:

• US: Must prove with "reasonable certainty" -- not speculative. New business rule may limit recovery for enterprises without track record [VERIFY]
• UK: Must satisfy "contemplation of the parties" test (Hadley v. Baxendale) and be within "reasonable contemplation" as a "serious possibility" [VERIFY]
• AU: Must be within "reasonable contemplation" under Hadley principles as received in Australia [VERIFY]

Diminution in Value

Out-of-Pocket / Reliance Expenses

• Catalog all expenses incurred in reliance on the breached promise or tortious conduct
• Document each expense with supporting evidence (invoices, receipts, contracts)
• Distinguish between wasted expenditure and recoverable costs

Medical Expenses and Future Care Costs (Personal Injury)

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] Medical damages requirements:

• US: Collateral source rule varies by state -- some allow offset for insurance payments, others do not [VERIFY STATE LAW]
• UK: NHS treatment generally not recoverable as private cost; private treatment recoverable if reasonable [VERIFY]
• AU: State/territory civil liability acts may cap or modify recovery [VERIFY]

Lost Wages and Earning Capacity

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] Earning capacity considerations:

• US: Work-life expectancy tables, discount rate debates, tax gross-up may apply [VERIFY]
• UK: Smith v. Manchester award for handicap on labor market; Ogden Tables for multipliers [VERIFY]
• AU: 5% discount rate under Todorovic v. Waller; 3% under some state statutes [VERIFY STATE LAW]

5b. Non-Economic Damages

CLARIFY -- Non-economic damages vary dramatically by jurisdiction and claim type:

• "Non-economic damages are available but may be capped in [jurisdiction]. The current cap is [amount] for [claim type]. Should I calculate uncapped amounts and then apply the cap, or work within the cap from the start?"

Pain and Suffering

Emotional Distress

• Distinguish between:
  • Parasitic emotional distress (accompanying physical injury)
  • Stand-alone emotional distress claims (IIED, NIED)
• Document manifestations: medical treatment, therapy, impact on daily life
• [JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC]: Stand-alone emotional distress claims have varying requirements (physical impact rule, zone of danger, Dillon factors) [VERIFY]

Loss of Consortium / Loss of Society

• Available to spouse, sometimes children/parents
• [JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC]: Not available in all jurisdictions or for all claims [VERIFY]

Non-Economic Damages Caps Summary

5c. Punitive / Exemplary Damages

CLARIFY -- Punitive damages availability varies significantly:

• "Punitive damages may be available under [jurisdiction] law for [claim type] if [standard] is met. What is the evidence of [malice/willfulness/gross negligence]? Should I include a punitive damages estimate in the model?"

US Punitive Damages Analysis

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] Punitive damages limits:

• US Federal (constitutional): Single-digit ratio presumptively valid; double-digit ratios rarely appropriate; low compensatories may justify higher ratio (State Farm v. Campbell) [VERIFY]
• US States: Many cap punitives at 2-4x compensatories or fixed dollar amounts [VERIFY STATE LAW]
• UK: Exemplary damages available only in narrow categories (Rookes v. Barnard): oppressive government action, calculated profit-seeking, statutory authorization; aggravated damages more broadly available [VERIFY]
• AU: Exemplary damages available for intentional torts, outrageous conduct; some statutory restrictions in civil liability legislation [VERIFY STATE LAW]

5d. Statutory Damages

For claims with statutory damages provisions:

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] Common statutory damages schemes:

• US Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 504): $750-$30,000 per work; willful up to $150,000; innocent down to $200 [VERIFY]
• US Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1117): Actual damages or profits; trebling for willful; statutory up to $2M for cyberpiracy [VERIFY]
• US FCRA (15 U.S.C. 1681n): $100-$1,000 per violation; punitives available [VERIFY]
• US TCPA (47 U.S.C. 227): $500 per violation; trebled for willful [VERIFY]
• UK Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR: No statutory damages per se; actual damages
  • distress; ICO fines separate [VERIFY]
• AU Privacy Act 1988: No statutory damages; compensation for loss/damage [VERIFY]

5e. Interest Calculations

Prejudgment Interest

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] Prejudgment interest rules:

• US Federal: 28 U.S.C. 1961 (T-bill rate, post-judgment); prejudgment varies by claim type and state law applied [VERIFY]
• US States: Highly variable -- statutory rates, discretionary awards, different start dates [VERIFY STATE LAW]
• UK: Senior Courts Act 1981 s.35A -- discretionary, typically 1-2% above base rate for commercial, 2% simple for PI; special damages from date of loss [VERIFY]
• AU: State/territory Supreme Court Acts -- typically discretionary, rates vary [VERIFY STATE LAW]

Postjudgment Interest

• US Federal: 52-week T-bill rate, compounded annually (28 U.S.C. 1961) [VERIFY]
• UK: 8% simple (Judgments Act 1838 s.17) [VERIFY]
• AU: Varies by state/territory [VERIFY STATE LAW]

Step 6: Build the Damages Range

Construct a three-point estimate for each damages category:

Range construction principles:

• Low: Conservative assumptions, defense-favorable positions, caps applied, maximum mitigation credit
• Base: Reasonable middle-ground assumptions, likely outcome
• High: Aggressive but defensible assumptions, plaintiff-favorable positions, minimum mitigation offset

CLARIFY -- For settlement purposes:

• "Should the range account for litigation risk (probability-weighted values) or present gross damages subject to separate liability risk assessment?"
• "What discount factor for verdict uncertainty would you apply? Options: None (present gross), 25% (strong case), 50% (balanced), 75% (weak case)"

Step 7: Mitigation and Offsets Analysis

7a. Duty to Mitigate

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] Mitigation principles:

• US: Avoidable consequences doctrine -- plaintiff cannot recover damages that reasonable efforts would have prevented [VERIFY]
• UK: Duty to take reasonable steps -- burden on defendant to prove failure to mitigate [VERIFY]
• AU: Similar to UK -- plaintiff must act reasonably but not required to take extraordinary steps [VERIFY]

7b. Collateral Source Offsets

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] Collateral source rule:

• US: Traditional rule (no offset) modified in many states by tort reform [VERIFY STATE LAW]
• UK: Various statutory schemes require recoupment (CRU for NHS/benefits) [VERIFY]
• AU: State civil liability acts modify traditional rule [VERIFY STATE LAW]

7c. Comparative/Contributory Fault

If fault allocation applies:

Step 8: Present Value Calculations

For future damages streams, apply appropriate discounting:

[JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] Discount rate approaches:

• US: Market rate debate -- risk-free rate vs. market rate; inflation adjustment (total offset method) [VERIFY]
• UK: Discount rate set by Lord Chancellor (currently -0.25% for PI, subject to change) [VERIFY]
• AU: 5% under Todorovic v. Waller; some states have statutory rates (e.g., NSW 5%, Vic 5%) [VERIFY STATE LAW]

Step 9: Sensitivity Analysis

Identify key variables and test sensitivity:

Tornado chart (conceptual): List variables by impact magnitude to identify which assumptions drive the model most.

Step 10: Quality Verification

Before delivering the analysis, run the quality checks:

10a. Citation Quality Gates

10b. Self-Interrogation for High-Severity Items

For any damages category over $1M or any punitive/statutory multiplier:

Pass 1 -- Legal Chain Integrity:

• Does the damages calculation methodology follow from the cited legal standards?
• Would a court in this jurisdiction award this category and amount?
• What is the strongest challenge to this calculation?

Pass 2 -- Completeness:

• Have all potentially applicable damages categories been considered?
• Have all offsets, caps, and limitations been applied?
• Are there additional damages theories not yet modeled?

Pass 3 -- Challenge:

• What is the strongest defense argument against this damages figure?
• How would a defense expert attack this calculation?
• Is this figure within the range of comparable verdicts/awards?

10c. Confidence Scoring

Assign confidence to each material calculation:

Step 11: Generate Deliverables

Produce the damages analysis using the output format template below, tailored to the purpose identified in Step 2.

Damages Classification System

SUPPORTED -- Well-Documented

The damages category has strong evidentiary support, clear legal basis, and defensible calculation methodology.

Characteristics:

• Documentary evidence supports each input
• Calculation methodology follows accepted standards
• Legal recoverability is clear in the jurisdiction
• Within range of comparable awards/verdicts

Action: Include in core damages model with high confidence.

PROBABLE -- Reasonable Support

The damages category has reasonable support but some gaps in evidence or methodology debates.

Characteristics:

• Some documentation gaps exist but can be addressed
• Methodology is reasonable but alternatives exist
• Legal recoverability is likely but not certain
• Some comparable verdict support

Action: Include in damages model with medium confidence; note assumptions.

SPECULATIVE -- Weak Support

The damages category has significant evidentiary or legal obstacles.

Characteristics:

• Material documentation gaps
• Methodology requires significant assumptions
• Legal recoverability is uncertain
• Limited comparable support

Action: Include as sensitivity upside only; flag for expert evaluation; may not survive Daubert/admissibility challenge.

NOT RECOVERABLE -- Legal Bar

The damages category is not recoverable under the governing law.

Characteristics:

• Statutory cap bars or limits recovery
• Jurisdictional rule excludes category
• Causation chain is broken
• Damages are too speculative to recover

Action: Exclude from damages model; document the legal bar for record.

Actionable Output Per Finding

For each damages category analyzed, provide:

**Category**: [Damages category name]
**Classification**: [SUPPORTED / PROBABLE / SPECULATIVE / NOT RECOVERABLE]
**Confidence**: [0.XX -- Level]

**Calculation Summary**:
- Low estimate: $[amount]
- Base estimate: $[amount]
- High estimate: $[amount]

**Legal Basis**: [Statute/case supporting recoverability]

**Key Assumptions**:
1. [Assumption 1]
2. [Assumption 2]

**Evidence Required**:
- [Document/testimony needed]

**Challenges/Risks**:
- [Potential defense argument]

**Expert Support Needed**: [Yes/No -- type of expert]

Prioritization Framework

Tier 1 -- Core Damages (High Confidence)

Categories that are clearly recoverable, well-documented, and form the floor of any settlement or judgment:

• Out-of-pocket economic damages with documentation
• Lost wages with employment records
• Medical expenses with bills
• Statutory damages within clear minimums

Strategy: Lead negotiations with these figures; form the baseline.

Tier 2 -- Material Damages (Medium Confidence)

Categories that are likely recoverable but require additional proof or expert support:

• Lost profits with reasonable projection methodology
• Future damages with present value calculation
• Non-economic damages within guideline ranges
• Prejudgment interest under favorable calculation

Strategy: Include in damages model; prepare for defense challenges.

Tier 3 -- Upside Damages (Lower Confidence)

Categories that may be recoverable if the case goes well but face obstacles:

• Punitive damages (requires meeting heightened standard)
• Enhanced statutory damages (requires willfulness proof)
• Non-economic damages above guideline ranges
• Speculative future damages

Strategy: Include in high-end range; use as negotiation leverage; prepare for aggressive defense attacks.

Citation Quality Gates

Run these gates silently before delivering any output:

Self-Interrogation for Material Calculations

For any damages category exceeding $500K or any multiplier (punitive, treble, statutory enhancement), apply this 3-pass review:

Pass 1 -- Methodology Integrity:

• Does the calculation methodology follow from the cited legal standard?
• Would an expert in this field use this approach?
• What are the alternative methodologies and why was this one chosen?

Pass 2 -- Data Completeness:

• Are all inputs documented or documented-assumption?
• What data gaps exist and how were they addressed?
• Would additional discovery materially change the number?

Pass 3 -- Challenge Resistance:

• How would opposing counsel attack this figure?
• How would a defense expert critique the methodology?
• Would this calculation survive a Daubert/admissibility challenge?

Mark audit trail: self_interrogation: PASS or self_interrogation: REVISED.

Confidence Scoring

Glass Box Audit Trail

Every damages analysis MUST include a Glass Box audit section:

glass_box:
  skill_name: "legalcode-damages-calculation"
  matter: "[Matter name/identifier]"
  purpose: "[ECA / Settlement / Expert briefing / Trial prep]"
  side: "[Plaintiff / Defendant / Neutral]"
  governing_law: "[Jurisdiction]"
  claim_types: "[List]"
  procedural_posture: "[Stage]"
  damages_categories_analyzed:
    - "[Category 1]"
    - "[Category 2]"
  total_range:
    low: "$[amount]"
    base: "$[amount]"
    high: "$[amount]"
  legalcode_mcp: "Connected / Not connected"
  authority_reference_file: "[path or 'Not created']"
  statutes_consulted:
    - "[Statute 1 -- VERIFIED or [VERIFY]]"
  case_law_consulted:
    - "[Case 1 -- VERIFIED or [VERIFY]]"
  citations_verified: "[N VERIFIED] / [N [VERIFY]]"
  self_interrogation: "PASS / REVISED / NOT APPLICABLE"
  confidence: "HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW -- [rationale]"
  key_assumptions:
    - "[Assumption 1]"
    - "[Assumption 2]"
  data_gaps:
    - "[Gap 1]"
  limitations:
    - "[Limitation 1]"
  expert_support_recommended: "[Yes/No -- type]"
  reviewer: "AI-assisted -- requires qualified legal and expert review"

Anti-Patterns

Explicit catalogue of what NOT to do in damages analysis:

1. Single-point estimates without ranges -- Damages calculations are inherently uncertain. Presenting a single number without a range masks uncertainty and reduces credibility. Always provide low/base/high.

2. Precision beyond data support -- Calculating damages to the penny when inputs are estimates creates false precision. Match output precision to input reliability.

3. Ignoring mitigation -- Failing to account for the plaintiff's duty to mitigate or presenting gross damages without offset analysis. Courts expect mitigation to be addressed.

4. Jurisdiction bleed -- Applying US punitive damages concepts in UK analysis, or using UK Judicial College guidelines in US jury trials. Keep frameworks jurisdiction- appropriate.

5. Double-counting -- Recovering the same harm twice under different theories (e.g., lost profits under both contract and tort without reconciliation). Address overlap explicitly.

6. Ignoring caps -- Calculating uncapped damages when statutory or constitutional caps apply. Always check for and apply applicable caps.

7. Speculative future damages without discounting -- Presenting future damages streams at face value without present-value adjustment. Always discount future amounts.

8. Punitive damages without predicate -- Calculating punitive damages without establishing that the conduct meets the jurisdiction's standard for punitives. Punitives require a legal gateway.

9. Comparable verdict cherry-picking -- Selecting only the highest verdicts as comparables while ignoring lower ones. Use median/range from representative sample.

10. Expert methodology without foundation -- Presenting calculations using expert methodologies without documenting the methodology or why it applies. If using an expert approach, cite it.

11. Ignoring the record -- Calculating damages based on claimed amounts rather than documented amounts. Use documented figures; note where documentation is needed.

12. Conflating liability and damages -- Presenting damages as if liability is established when it is contested. Separate damages analysis from liability probability unless explicitly probability-weighting.

13. Static analysis without sensitivity -- Failing to identify which assumptions drive the model and how changes affect the total. Always include sensitivity analysis for key variables.

14. Missing interest -- Calculating damages through trial date but ignoring prejudgment interest, which can add significant value in long-running matters.

15. Assumptions without documentation -- Making assumptions without stating them. Every assumption should be explicit and in the audit trail.

Writing Standards

Apply plain-language discipline to all output:

For damages summaries (may be shared with clients, executives, insurers):

• Plain language accessible to non-lawyers
• Clear separation of facts, assumptions, and conclusions
• Ranges rather than false precision
• Key drivers highlighted

For expert briefings:

• Technical terminology appropriate
• Full documentation of inputs and methodology
• Clear statement of what expert needs to provide
• Areas for expert judgment identified

For litigation support:

• Cite-ready format for briefs and motions
• Record citations for factual assertions
• Challenges and counterarguments anticipated
• Suitable for Daubert/admissibility preparation

Quality gates before delivery:

1. Can a business stakeholder understand the total exposure range?
2. Are all material assumptions stated?
3. Is every legal claim backed by citation or flagged [VERIFY]?
4. Does precision match data quality?
5. Have caps, offsets, and limitations been addressed?

External Tool Integration

This skill is designed to work with legalcode-mcp as its primary legal research tool.

With legalcode-mcp connected (preferred):

• Search for jurisdiction-specific damages caps, interest rates, and calculation standards
• Verify statutory damages amounts are current
• Pull recent case law on methodology challenges (Daubert, admissibility)
• Check comparable verdicts in the jurisdiction
• Mark legalcode-mcp-sourced citations as VERIFIED in Glass Box

Without legalcode-mcp:

• Mark all statutory and case law references with [VERIFY]
• Note in Glass Box: legalcode_mcp: "Not connected"
• Focus on structuring the damages model; flag legal verification needs
• Use web search for publicly available caps and rates

Integration with related skills:

• legalcode-early-case-assessment: This skill provides the damages component for overall exposure modeling. ECA provides the liability probability; damages calculation provides the magnitude.
• legalcode-brief-analyzer: Use brief analyzer to evaluate the persuasiveness of damages arguments in motions and briefs before filing.

Output Format Template

Structure the final deliverable based on purpose:

For Early Case Assessment / Settlement

# Damages Analysis Summary

**Matter**: [Name/identifier]
**Date**: [Date]
**Purpose**: [ECA / Settlement corridor / Insurance evaluation]
**Side**: [Plaintiff / Defendant / Neutral]
**Governing Law**: [Jurisdiction]

---

## Executive Summary

**Total Damages Range**:
| | Low | Base | High |
|--|-----|------|------|
| **Economic** | $ | $ | $ |
| **Non-Economic** | $ | $ | $ |
| **Punitive** | $ | $ | $ |
| **Statutory** | $ | $ | $ |
| **Interest** | $ | $ | $ |
| **TOTAL** | $ | $ | $ |

**Key Drivers**: [Top 3 variables affecting the range]

**Critical Assumptions**: [Top 3 assumptions to validate]

---

## Damages by Category

### Economic Damages

#### [Category 1] -- [Classification] | Confidence: [Level]

[Detailed calculation and support]

[Repeat for each category]

### Non-Economic Damages

[Detailed analysis]

### Punitive Damages

[Availability analysis and calculation if applicable]

### Statutory Damages

[If applicable]

### Interest Calculations

[Prejudgment and postjudgment]

---

## Mitigation and Offsets

[Analysis of duty to mitigate, collateral sources, comparative fault]

---

## Sensitivity Analysis

[Key variables and impact on range]

---

## Comparables

[Comparable verdicts/settlements if available]

---

## Data Gaps and Next Steps

| Gap     | Impact   | Recommended Action | Priority       |
| ------- | -------- | ------------------ | -------------- |
| [Gap 1] | [Impact] | [Action]           | [High/Med/Low] |

---

## Glass Box Audit Trail

[YAML block]

For Expert Briefing

# Expert Damages Briefing

**Matter**: [Name]
**Expert Type Needed**: [Economist / Forensic accountant / Vocational / Medical]
**Date**: [Date]

---

## Scope of Engagement

[What the expert is being asked to opine on]

---

## Claim Types and Damages Theories

[Legal framework for damages recovery]

---

## Key Documents Provided

| Document | Bates Range | Relevance        |
| -------- | ----------- | ---------------- |
| [Doc 1]  | [Range]     | [Why it matters] |

---

## Preliminary Calculations (Subject to Expert Refinement)

[Structured calculations with methodology notes]

---

## Questions for Expert

1. [Question requiring expert judgment]
2. [Methodology question]
3. [Data sufficiency question]

---

## Anticipated Defense Challenges

[How the defense will attack the damages; what the expert should address]

---

## Daubert/Admissibility Considerations

[Methodological foundation needs]

Localization Notes

This skill is jurisdiction-agnostic by design. To create a jurisdiction-specific variant:

1. Replace [JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC] markers with hardcoded local rules
2. Replace [VERIFY] tags with verified statutory references
3. Add jurisdiction-specific caps, rates, and limitations tables
4. Add local expert testimony standards
5. Add jurisdiction-specific anti-patterns
6. Update frontmatter to reference the specific jurisdiction

Recommended jurisdiction variants:

• legalcode-damages-calculation-us-federal -- Federal law with state law markers
• legalcode-damages-calculation-ew -- England & Wales specific
• legalcode-damages-calculation-au-federal -- Australian federal with state markers

Provenance

Created by Legalcode (2026-02-28). Original synthesis combining:

• Damages calculation methodologies from forensic economics and litigation practice
• US, UK, and Australian damages law frameworks with jurisdiction markers
• Quality assurance frameworks from legalcode-contract-review reference standard
• Integration points with legalcode-early-case-assessment and legalcode-brief-analyzer
• Anti-patterns and writing standards adapted for damages-specific context

This skill is Task #36 from SKILL_CREATION_TASKS.md, complementing the litigation toolkit alongside legalcode-early-case-assessment and legalcode-brief-analyzer.