What I remember reading was a scenario that went as if the aircraft, a Beechcraft Bonanza, went on fire on short final, distracting the pilot and thus causing the CFIT. Post-crash, the aircraft burnt out completely, leaving nothing to show when the fire had started, whether that was pre- or post-crash.
Of course it was far more likely that the pilot simply made a mistake and did a "duck-under" when he went visual, or perhaps never went visual and just hit obstructions off the approach end with the usual post-crash fire, but the jury bought this other theory about the in-flight fire. After all, it could have happened that way, even if that was rather improbable!
My point is that American lawyers go after the guys with the deep pockets, any way they can. You will see a list of defendants as long as your arm, sometimes: all the major suppliers, of the airframe, the engines, the instruments, the seats, the galleys... you name it. That "scatter gun" approach is the way to go if you don't have to worry about being hit for costs if you lose.