As described, I don't think the incident was an 'accident', in terms of the Montreal Convention 1999 (aka MC99). Therefore the airline does not have 'strict liability' in respect of this incident. i.e. the airline does not automatically have to pay damages without the plaintiffs proving that the airline is both responsible and liable.
I would suspect that the plaintiffs lawyers are hoping to settle without having to go to court - i.e. that the lawyers will be paid to go away and be quiet.