Having read all three sites in their entirety let me say this:
They are all in agreement with the essential facts of the case. The only difference is that Werekoala's link actually discusses the specific points rather than just saying:
This is how it is, we're right because we're more accurate....
You can chose to disagree with Overlawyer's interpretation of the numbers and events, but in the other two cases you just get the hard number (not actually in dispute here) and a one sided judgement with no discussion.
Of the three, that makes Werekoala's post not only irrefutably correct on teh facts of the case, but actually more informative if you wish to agree OR disagree with its relevance to Tort reform.