Neither speaker makes this claim. Justine and Simon’s discussion is about whether they can tell that Pellman expected to lose in court. That’s a distinct question from the actual odds of the case.

Neither Justine nor Simon talks about whether Pellman’s corporate leaders made an accurate prediction about their odds in court. They’re still trying to figure out what the prediction was in the first place.

Simon agrees with this, but Justine never disagrees. Justine just doesn’t discuss the role of cost-effectiveness in Pellman’s decision to settle.

Neither speaker makes this claim. Simon is the only one who talks about cost-effectiveness as a factor in Pellman’s decision, but he never says that lower legal fees would have guaranteed Pellman would have gone to court.

Justine agrees and Simon disagrees, so this is their disagreement. Justine claims settling shows that Pellman expected to lose, meaning they would not have settled otherwise. Simon thinks they would have settled whatever their odds, because it’s less expensive than court.