I know there are differences between the US and Australia, but there are some basic principles in common.
At the time of the accident, the insurance companies dealt with the damage to the vehicles. If she had been injured at the time, her injuries would also have been treated at the expense of the insurance company your husband was covered by.
But at the time she seemed uninjured. No claim was apparently made.
So point 1) - check with the insurance company (and anyone else) to see if there is a statute of limitations on someone making a claim for personal damages well after the event. It IS technically possible that she sustained, say, a hidden spinal fracture which was not immediately apparent; or perhaps soft tissue damage which was not noticed or didn't really develop until two years later. And it is for this reason that there are some carefully worded options.
Now, if she had a masked injury which is now becoming apparent, then she would have to prove:
1) that her entire current health problems have resulted either entirely or significantly from that accident (if not entirely, then the settlement, if awarded, would be proportionally reduced); AND
2) That she is either much worse now that could have reasonably been predicted back then, or her condition has gone on to deteriorate in ways which were not taken into account at the time of the original settlement.
The reason I know this much - my health problems are the result of an injury at work, which was then complicated by subsequent medical treatment (provided at work by on-site doctor).
We settled out of court about five years later, but at the time of settlement the condition was believed to be self-limiting and to have reached its worst point. I have been told that because no allowance was made at the time for ongoing disability and medical costs, that I could now make a much larger claim. And to make it effectively I would need to prove:
1) that the original accident was indeed the cause (hard to prove, in my case; I know it, but medically, it's hard to prove because the complication I have is so rare); AND
2) That my condition has worsened, and is still worsening, well beyond what could have been predicted at the time of the original settlement.
The condition has to be significantly and unpredictably worse to make it worth the while of any court to re-open the case.
What would happen in my case now? The original judgement (in terms of medical compensation) would be set aside and the entire case would have to be heard over, from the beginning. Any new judgement COULD be less than the original amount (unlikely, with inflation if nothing else).
As time goes on, trying to re-hear a case gets more difficult and often, they get refused simply because it would be too difficult to ever get any further even with new information. That is why they require significantly more new justification, instead of just re-hashing old ground.
In my case - I COULD simply go to court saying, "When we settled 15 years ago, I thought the amount would be enough for my needs. It is not, I need more money now."
Sorry, not a good enough reason. If my condition is unchanged, then it is MY fault for not planning ahead. Maybe I could sue my lawyers for failing to properly advise me to take my future costs into account. But re-open the case? Hardly.
Or I could go to court saying, "I have just been told that my condition has progressed to Multiple Sclerosis. And I have several medical experts willing to testify that this is DEFINITELY due to the original injury, and not simply unfortunate coincidence. This means my condition has significantly worsened since the original settlement, in ways we could not have predicted back then. Therefore I require the case to be re-opened, to take the extra degree of disability into account."
The court could respond with, "MS happens. It's unfortunate. But it is not going to be possible to prove that the original injury was entirely responsible for the MS, it could simply have developed independently. And as for ongoing costs - in what way is the patient any more out of pocket that could have been anticipated at the time of original settlement?"
So in your case - I agree with the others who are sceptical. So many people seem to think that you can make a lot of money out of being 'injured' in an accident. And when it all boils down, this is a myth. If you can afford to privately sue someone, then maybe. But generally when insurance companies are involved, there are clear guidelines which must be followed, amounts which they look up in a book depending on degree of disability and exactly what has gone wrong.
My original settlement - I got paid reimbursement of medical expenses to that date, and a portion of my lost wages, to that date. No future provisions at all. I did not get rich, I just got enough to pay most of my debts incurred through becoming disabled.
In this case - get good advice legally. And yes, check out the legality and feasibility of some detective work. Sounds to me like this woman got talking to someone who said, "You didn't bung on a crook back and claim compo? You fool, but maybe it's not too late to get enough money to pay for your kid's braces."
I doubt very much than anyone is going to believe she has waited two years to take action over lifelong pain and disability. You should have heard within weeks, or at least months, that she was in severe pain and unable to work. She would have to give a darn good reason for waiting this long, and I frankly just can't think of one.
Take a deep breath, enjoy your Thanksgiving, and relax. Look on this as perhaps some light entertainment designed to give you some amusement over winter, as you see a person desperately trying to maintain a convincing act for long enough to get this 'big bucks payout' she seems to think she can scrounge.
And the ultimate irony? There is a condition you can get, if you bung on a disabled act for long enough. You actually can BECOME disabled, if you stop walking normally, put yourself through painful medical tests, use a wheelchair or crutches, stop exercising - the end result is then self-perpetuating, self-inflicted disability. Functional overlay happens to the genuine as well as the sham operator. The ultimate end point is Chronic Somatisation Syndrome. I've seen one, a doozy. Fascinating, in a horrifying sort of way.
Marg