On January 30, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments regarding the landmark $38.3 million bellwether jury verdict against Chiquita Brands International (Chiquita). The historic verdict in 2024 was the first time that an American jury held a major US corporation liable for human rights abuses in another country. The tone of the oral argument, however, suggests a potential reversal of the verdict and that additional proceedings before the trial court may be on the horizon.
Background
From 1997 to 2004, Chiquita’s Colombia operations overlapped with territory controlled by the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC). In 2007, Chiquita pleaded guilty in US court to paying over $1.7 million to the AUC from 1997 to 2004. Based on that guilty plea, hundreds of plaintiffs filed lawsuits in the United States, with the panel on multidistrict litigation eventually consolidating the cases in the Southern District of Florida. After years of proceedings, including some claims being appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, a jury in June 2024 awarded $38.3 million to 8 victims’ families.
Key Takeaways
On appeal, Chiquita argued that the trial court: (i) erroneously substituted Colombian law with a hybrid federal-Florida common law; (2) wrongly excluded evidence of witness tampering; and (iii) erred on the damages-cap issue.
The Eleventh Circuit panel focused much of the argument on the first claimed error. Based on the questions raised and general tone of the argument, it is entirely possible that the Eleventh Circuit will reverse the lower court ruling. In particular, Judges Luck and Brasher raised concerns during the argument that federal common law—rather than Florida law—may have been applied, which would raise concerns regarding the proper standard of causation. The panel also sought to address a related question: whether the causation standard mattered when providing the jury with instructions.
- Chiquita argued that if foreign law is unclear, the proper course is dismissal—not judicial gap-filling. It further contended that Florida negligence turns on traditional “but-for” causation, and that the trial court therefore erred by importing a federal common-law theory that treats participation in a broader chain of events as sufficient to establish causation.
- Plaintiffs responded that the jury’s causation instructions align under both Florida law and federal common-law principles, arguing that each framework can accommodate aiding-and-abetting concepts. They argued that, given the type of violence at issue, foreseeability and aiding-and-abetting standards were sufficiently tethered to the alleged harm. Notably, the panel asked plaintiffs to specifically ground the causation theory on Florida precedent.
Flashpoints in the Eleventh Circuit Decision
The decision may turn on a few narrow questions with potentially material consequences:
- When foreign law is unclear, may a federal court “gap fill” with forum law?
- Were the jury instructions anchored in the correct source of law (Colombian, Florida, federal common law), and if not, was any error harmless?
- Should courts reconcile negligence causation with “substantial assistance” standards similar to secondary-liability verdicts for aiding-and-abetting liability?
What’s at Stake
The 11th Circuit’s decision will determine more than just the fate of Chiquita’s $38 million liability. As we wrote previously, the $38.3 million verdict represents only a small percentage of total claimants. If the verdict is affirmed, therefore, it is entirely possible that Chiquita could face years of supplemental litigation and potentially significant settlement demands. An affirmance also may lead to the application in other cases of a lower threshold for secondary liability in foreign tort cases, where “substantial assistance” that “foreseeably increases the risk” could expose multinationals to liability for negligence, even without a direct “but-for” link to specific violent acts.
We expect a decision later this year and will provide a comprehensive breakdown of the court’s reasoning once the Eleventh Circuit issues its opinion.
Stay Informed: Our Related Coverage
New US FTO Designation of Colombian Criminal Organizations Signals New Risks for Multinational Companies in Latin America
