Chilean Cherry Exporters Lose $140 Million After Court Rules in Favor of Maersk

Chile's Constitutional Court has unanimously rejected a legal challenge brought by seven agricultural export companies. The high-profile dispute centered on the devastating destruction of approximately 24,000 metric tons of premium Chilean cherries bound for the lucrative Chinese market.

The unanimous ruling legally limits the shipping giant Maersk to paying only $16.4 million in total compensation. This controversial cap represents only 10% of the estimated $160 million in catastrophic financial losses, leaving desperate farmers to absorb the remaining 90%.

A Stranded Vessel And Spoiled Cargo

The unprecedented financial losses stemmed directly from a disastrous maritime accident that occurred in January 2025. The Maersk-operated vessel Saltoro ran aground while carrying more than 1,300 refrigerated shipping containers of highly perishable fruit.

The enormous cargo ship remained completely stranded at sea for more than 20 excruciating days. The severely delayed vessel did not finally reach its designated Chinese port until Feb. 17, destroying the strict cold-chain logistics requirements. （Related： Opinion | Trapped In The Gulf: Why Trump Cannot Win His War in Iran ｜ Latest ）

Chinese agricultural authorities swiftly rejected the entire shipment after discovering severe quality deterioration caused by the prolonged transport delays. By March, all 24,000 metric tons of the highly anticipated agricultural exports had been destroyed.

This catastrophic logistical failure heavily impacted Chile's agricultural sector, which remains deeply dependent on Asian consumers. Roughly 90% of the nation's annual cherry production is exported directly to China.

The Constitutional Challenge Fails

Following the maritime incident, Maersk formally established a liability limitation fund in strict accordance with standard international maritime conventions. In response, seven severely affected export companies aggressively filed a formal constitutional complaint seeking full financial restitution.

The frustrated agricultural exporters fiercely argued that the standard international liability cap directly violated their fundamental property rights. They claimed the strict limitation unconstitutionally left them without adequate legal recourse to recover their massive financial damages.

The court decisively rejected those arguments, ruling that carrier liability limitation remains a fundamental cornerstone of international maritime law. Magistrates noted this essential legal framework has been carefully developed over centuries of complex global trade evolution. （Related： Opinion | Trapped In The Gulf: Why Trump Cannot Win His War in Iran ｜ Latest ）

Preserving Global Shipping Stability

The Chilean court determined that the controversial liability cap successfully balances the competing interests of cargo owners and shipping operators. This delicate legal balance is specifically designed to preserve the vital stability and predictability of global maritime networks.

Magistrates ruled that overriding the established limitation in response to a single large-scale loss would dangerously undermine international maritime trade. The decision forcefully reaffirms that institutional mechanisms sustaining global logistics chains take legal precedence over individual compensation claims.

International media outlets have widely described the landmark ruling as a highly significant legal precedent for the global shipping industry. Industry observers warn that comprehensive cargo insurance will become increasingly essential for exporters relying heavily on single markets. （Related： Opinion | Trapped In The Gulf: Why Trump Cannot Win His War in Iran ｜ Latest ）