For several years, I worked in the Risk Management department of a large corporation. Our job was to advise the CEO whether or not it was prudent to go to trial. The business was a truck hauling concern, consequently there were a lot of miles on the road, and always the risk of an accident.
Very often those accidents were scams, because the scammers knew we had deep pockets.
There was one in particular where we were pretty sure we would prevail in court. (I remember that I was always frustrated because I thought we had airtight cases, and we could "win" in court. But the prudent thing to do was to settle out of court and thus NOT put huge assets at risk. Consequently, settling out of court is not an admission of guilt, but rather common sense.)
The scam: One carload (of scammers) would abruptly pull in front of another carload of scammers, causing the first carload of scammers to jam on their brakes. Our truck would be in back of the carload that had slammed on their brakes. The driver would naturally slam into the car of scammers in front of him. Of course, THAT carload of scammers would sue for "whiplash" or injuries sustained from ramming into the windshield.
And the rest of the scam relied on the companies desire to stay out of court, where fickle juries would sympathize with the "little guy" and render a verdict against the "big bad company".
(Juries are fickle. And DUMB.)
So often the company would offer an out of court settlement just so that the huge company assets wouldn't be put at risk for punitive damages awarded by that fickle jury.
The scammers, then, could likely count on a windfall.
Most of the time we in Risk Management would recommend settling out of court, even when we thought our case in court would be good. Those fickle juries ruling against the "big bad company" were our worry.