Hawai‘i Appeals Court Revives Banana Worker Pesticide Claims Against Multinational Defendants

On September 22, 2025, the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i issued a memorandum opinion in Patrickson v. Dole Food Company, Inc. (No. CAAP-22-0000687), partially vacating a series of summary judgment rulings and sanctions orders that had disposed of long-running litigation brought by Central and South American banana workers against Dole, Dow, Shell, Occidental, and Del Monte .

Great victory by my friend Scott Hendler who fought for Justice for these people for 30 Years!!!

The litigation, originally filed in 1997, concerns alleged injuries from exposure to dibromochloropropane (DBCP) on banana plantations in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, and Ecuador. Plaintiffs claimed infertility and other health harms from DBCP, while defendants argued that prior settlements, missed depositions, and foreign law barred recovery.

Key Holdings

1.

Sanctions Striking Witnesses Vacated

The circuit court struck three plaintiffs as witnesses for failing to appear at Houston depositions. The ICA held this was an abuse of discretion, noting that plaintiffs had legitimate obstacles — medical issues, employer refusals, and geographic remoteness — and had offered alternatives such as remote testimony. Because other defendants consented to rescheduling, prejudice was minimal .

2.

Foreign Release Did Not Bar Third-Party Claims

One plaintiff, Patrickson, had signed a 2006 release with Costa Rica’s National Insurance Institute (NII) under Law 8130, accepting compensation for DBCP exposure. The trial court interpreted the release as extinguishing claims against all parties. The ICA disagreed, holding that the plain language discharged only the NII, not private corporations. Expert affidavits asserting otherwise were insufficient. Summary judgment for defendants was vacated .

3.

Genuine Issues of Material Fact for Remaining Plaintiffs

The court found that deposition testimony from plaintiff Arias created factual disputes regarding the extent of his DBCP exposure and resulting infertility, precluding summary judgment. By contrast, Arias’s non-opposition to Shell’s motion barred appeal on that issue. Orders disposing of claims against Mendez and Rivera were also vacated due to the improper sanction order .

4.

Expert Testimony Rulings

• The exclusion of toxicologist Michael DiBartolomeis was vacated because Arias’s testimony supported a factual foundation for causation.

• The exclusion of air-modeling expert Andrew Gray was affirmed, as his report was untimely and not based on newly developed evidence.

Procedural and Doctrinal Takeaways

• Sanctions and Abuse of Discretion: Courts must balance enforcement of scheduling orders against litigants’ ability to participate. Here, the ICA emphasized that dismissal-like sanctions require evidence of willfulness or bad faith.

• Foreign Law Determinations: Under HRCP Rule 44.1, interpretation of foreign law is a question of law subject to de novo review. The ICA applied this to reject expansive readings of a Costa Rican release.

• Summary Judgment Standards: The opinion reiterates that deposition testimony raising credibility and causation disputes suffices to defeat summary judgment.

• Appellate Waiver: Non-opposition to summary judgment below precludes appellate challenge.

Conclusion

The ICA’s decision breathes new life into claims that had been nearly extinguished, underscoring the importance of procedural fairness, careful interpretation of foreign releases, and adherence to summary judgment standards. The case now returns to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit for further proceedings consistent with the opinion .