Don't know about all the legalities, but if the general facts are as stated, then doing what they did to her is wrong and everybody knows it. Only a scum lawyer with more respect for "law" than for decency would back the company in this case. I hope she wins and I hope she gets a bunch of punitive damages too. Clear fraud in my opinion and the suit is not frivolous. They lied, and she produced based on their lie. Wrong, pure and simple.
And lest you think I am sympathetic to frivolous lawsuits, I was very vocal about the stupid waitress that sued Hooters for sexual harassment b/c she supposedly thought "Hooters" only referred to as an owl mascot and supported the company in that particular case.
While there is certainly no shortage of "scum lawyers", not every lawyer who represents a client with a bad case is scum (you can't imagine how hard this is for me to say this). If the client wants to go ahead with the case against the advice of his attorney, it is the client that is scum, not the attorney. Now I will agree that a scum client can also have a scum attorney; and in fact, is usually the case, but not always.
As for the legalities, she has a slam dunk case. The real dispute here is not really whether she will get the car; that is a done deal. The real dispute is who will get to decide who and how much more money she will get for additional damages.
ConservativeLawyer, What is your take on what is really at issue here?