Construction Claim Rules in Mississippi

Statutory interest rate

8% / year default (contract silent); judgment bears the contract's own rate if contract-based

Where a construction contract doesn't specify its own rate, the statutory default is 8% per year (calculated by the actuarial method). Once judgment is entered on that contract claim, the judgment itself bears interest at the same rate as the underlying contract, so the contract's own interest clause, where one exists, should be treated as primary, with the 8% default used only when the contract is silent. Non-contract judgments bear interest at a rate set by the trial judge's discretion.

Compounding: The contract-default rate is calculated by the actuarial method; judgment interest generally follows the contract rate or judicial discretion and is treated as simple absent a compounding clause in the contract itself.

Citation: Miss. Code Ann. § 75-17-1 (contract default); Miss. Code Ann. § 75-17-7 (judgment interest)

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/title-75/chapter-17/general-provisions/section-75-17-1/

Accrual: breach of contract claim

From the date of breach

The Mississippi Supreme Court overruled its own prior precedent that had limited prejudgment interest on a contract claim to the post-complaint period, holding instead that a prevailing party may recover prejudgment interest running from the date of breach itself.

Citation: Arcadia Farms Partnership v. Audubon Ins. Co., 77 So. 3d 100 (Miss. 2012)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/2012/2009-ct-00903-sct.html

Accrual: property damage / tort claim

Discretionary with the trial judge, but never earlier than the date the complaint was filed

For judgments not founded on a sale or a contract, including property damage claims, Mississippi law lets the judge set both the interest rate and a start date the judge determines to be fair, with one hard floor: that date can never be earlier than the date the complaint was filed. There is no automatic right to interest from the date of loss.

Citation: Miss. Code Ann. § 75-17-7

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/title-75/chapter-17/general-provisions/section-75-17-7/

Because the floor is only the filing date and the exact date is otherwise left to the judge's discretion, don't assume a specific accrual date for a Mississippi property-damage claim without confirming the judge's actual ruling.

Actual Cash Value rule

Replacement cost oriented (narrower than a full replacement-cost-minus-depreciation formula; labor should not be depreciated)

The leading Mississippi Supreme Court case construed ACV as replacement cost specifically for personal-property/furnishings claims (reasoning that used furnishings have no real secondhand market), allowing testimony on age, condition and original cost rather than imposing a rigid formula; its extension to construction/dwelling claims is an inference, not a direct holding. A more recent federal Fifth Circuit case applying Mississippi law held labor costs should not be depreciated when calculating ACV.

Citation: Lititz Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buckley, 261 So. 2d 492 (Miss. 1972); Mitchell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 18-60776 (5th Cir. Mar. 30, 2020)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/1972/46505-0.html

Mitchell is a federal appellate case applying Mississippi law (persuasive, not squarely binding state-court precedent). A statute sometimes cited for Mississippi ACV (§ 83-54-5) was checked directly and found to apply only to creditor-placed/force-placed insurance on repossessed collateral, not general property claims and should not be used here.

ACV statute or regulation

Mississippi does not prohibit labor depreciation by statute; a Department of Insurance bulletin advises only that it be clearly disclosed in the policy.

The Mississippi Insurance Department's Bulletin 2017-8 (August 4, 2017) states that no Mississippi law prohibits depreciation of labor in an ACV calculation, but advises that insurers using this practice should clearly provide for it in the policy and explain it in the claim estimate. Mississippi case law has gone the insured's way in specific disputes where a policy failed to define 'actual cash value' at all: in Titan Exteriors, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 297 F. Supp. 3d 628 (N.D. Miss. 2018), the court found an undefined ACV term ambiguous and construed it against the insurer's labor-depreciation position, but this reflects contract-interpretation case law rather than a statutory prohibition and does not establish a blanket rule against labor depreciation where a policy does define ACV.

Citation: Mississippi Insurance Department Bulletin 2017-8 (August 4, 2017)

Source: https://www.mid.ms.gov/legal/bulletins/20178bul.pdf

The bulletin PDF could not be read as text, so its content is summarised from sources describing it. Read the bulletin itself before relying on it.

Recoverable depreciation holdback

No Mississippi statute sets a holdback release deadline. On the related labor-depreciation question, Mississippi has no statutory prohibition, but courts favor the insured's interpretation excluding labor from depreciation when the policy is silent.

No Mississippi statute or regulation governs the timing or process for paying withheld recoverable depreciation, so the policy terms control. On the related scope question, the Insurance Department has stated that no Mississippi law prohibits depreciating labor but recommends insurers provide for it clearly in the policy. The Fifth Circuit, applying Mississippi law, favoured the insured's reading that an undefined actual cash value term covers material depreciation only. With no statute in play the policy is the whole of the law here, so read three things in it: what proof of completed repairs the insurer can require, how long the insured has to claim the withheld depreciation and whether that period can be extended in writing. Policy deadlines commonly run from 180 days to two years from the date of loss and they are enforced as written. Ask for the extension before the period runs rather than after.

Citation: Mitchell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9874 (5th Cir. Mar. 30, 2020); Mississippi Insurance Department Bulletin 2017-8.

Source: https://www.hkr.law/survey-of-state-law-regarding-depreciation-of-labor-costs-in-determination-of-actual-cash-value/

The labor depreciation material comes from a 2025 practitioner survey rather than the primary sources.

“No damages for delay” clause enforceability

Enforceable but strictly construed against the party seeking the benefit, with four recognised exceptions

In Mississippi Transportation Commission v. SCI, Inc., a highway contractor on a seven-mile widening of Highway 603 worked around utility poles, lines and pipelines that had not been relocated on the dates the Commission's utility certification gave. The Mississippi Supreme Court noted that it had upheld a no-damages-for-delay clause only once before, in 1951 and stated that such clauses are enforceable but are construed strictly against those who seek their benefit. It set out the four exceptions many jurisdictions recognise: delay the parties did not intend or contemplate to be within the clause; delay resulting from fraud, misrepresentation or other bad faith by the party seeking the benefit; delay extending for such an unreasonable length of time that the delayed party would have been justified in abandoning the contract; and delay outside the specifically enumerated delays the clause covers. On the facts, the court held the Commission's refusal to grant time extensions on a timely basis could reasonably be interpreted as active interference or bad faith, so the clause did not bar the contractor's damages award. Alabama later adopted the same four-exception framework.

Citation: Mississippi Transp. Comm'n v. SCI, Inc., No. 96-CA-00592-SCT, 717 So. 2d 332 (Miss. 1998)

Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/1998/conv5393.html

Construction contract filing deadline

3 years for a claim without its own specifically prescribed period, covering an ordinary contract claim

Mississippi's catch-all limitations period, covering actions for which no other period is prescribed, including an ordinary written or oral contract claim, is 3 years from accrual. Two deadlines sit in front of that one on most construction claims. A mechanic's lien and a payment bond claim each run on their own, far shorter clock, counted from last furnishing rather than from breach and missing either one removes the security while leaving the contract claim alive but unsecured. Check those dates first. Accrual is the other half of the question: the period runs from breach, which on a payment dispute is usually the date payment came due rather than the date the work was done.

Citation: Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/title-15/chapter-1/section-15-1-49/

State unemployment insurance (SUTA)

New employers pay 1.00% in their first year, 1.10% in their second year and 1.20% in the third year and thereafter (until experience-rated). Established employers range from 0.0% to 5.4%. The 2026 taxable wage base is $14,000, unchanged from 2025.

Mississippi's Department of Employment Security (MDES) assigns start-up businesses a tax rate of 1.00% for the first year of liability, 1.10% for the second year and 1.20% for the third and subsequent years, until the employer becomes experience-rated. Experience-rated employers' rates vary between 0.0% and 5.4% depending on claims history and other factors. The 2026 taxable wage base is $14,000 per employee, unchanged from 2025.

Citation: Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES), Unemployment Tax Rates

Source: https://mdes.ms.gov/employer-faqs/

Last checked: 2026-08-26

The department's page does not label these figures by year and directs employers to a local tax field representative. Reconfirm before relying on them for a filing year.

Workers' compensation rating

Mississippi is an NCCI state. NCCI publishes annual state advisory reports for Mississippi and files advisory loss costs used as the basis for insurer rates.

Mississippi workers' compensation insurance rates are based on advisory loss costs filed by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), reviewed by the Mississippi Insurance Department. NCCI maintains ongoing state advisory reports for Mississippi (2024 and 2025 editions identified), consistent with its role as Mississippi's licensed rating/advisory organization.

Citation: NCCI, State Advisory Resources, Mississippi

Source: https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Pages/II_StateAdvisoryForumState_MS.aspx?state=Mississippi

NCCI maintains active state advisory reports for Mississippi, which is standard for an NCCI state. Pull the current report for rate change figures.

Prevailing wage law

Mississippi has no state prevailing wage law. There is no state statute establishing prevailing wage requirements for public construction.

Mississippi does not maintain any state statute establishing prevailing wage requirements for public construction contracts. Construction projects in Mississippi that receive federal funding remain subject to the federal Davis-Bacon Act separately, which is triggered at a $2,000 federal-funding threshold, but no state-level 'Little Davis-Bacon' law exists.

Citation: CCMI-LCP, Mississippi Prevailing Wage Information

Source: https://www.ccmilcp.com/mississippi.html

Comparative / contributory negligence rule

Pure comparative fault, no bar; recovery reduced by the worker's share of fault

Recovery is reduced in proportion to the worker's share of fault, with no threshold that cuts it off. A worker 90% at fault still recovers 10% of the damages.

Citation: Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-15

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/title-11/chapter-7/in-general/section-11-7-15/

Verified against: the rule as stated in Miss. Code Ann. s 11-7-15 and confirmed across current surveys

Non-economic damages cap

Non-economic damages capped at $1,000,000

Applies to non-economic damages in civil actions other than medical malpractice.

Citation: Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-60(2)(b)

OSHA plan

Federal OSHA (no state plan)

Mississippi has no OSHA-approved state plan; both public and private employers fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction. Under federal jurisdiction the citation is issued by an OSHA area office and contested before the federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Federal OSHA does not cover state and local government employees, so a public employee injured on a public job falls outside it. Reporting deadlines are a work-related fatality within 8 hours, an inpatient hospitalisation, amputation or loss of an eye within 24 hours. For a construction claim the inspection file matters more than the citation: photographs, measurements, witness statements and the inspector's narrative are usually obtainable and are often the best contemporaneous record of the site.

Citation: 29 U.S.C. § 667 (State Plan roster)

Source: https://www.osha.gov/stateplans

Weight of an OSHA violation in a negligence case

Mississippi takes an unusually restrictive minority position: OSHA regulations are generally NOT admissible to show negligence at all, though a later case carved out a narrow exception for showing industry-standard reasonableness with a proper limiting instruction.

The Mississippi Supreme Court held that, because governmental codes and regulations are not admissible as evidence of negligence unless given compulsory force by the state legislature, evidence of OSHA regulations is not admissible to show negligence, a stricter exclusionary rule than the majority 'admissible as evidence' approach used in most states. A later Mississippi Supreme Court decision clarified that OSHA standards may still be admitted for the narrower purpose of showing whether conduct was reasonable and consistent with industry standards, provided the jury receives a proper limiting instruction that the evidence cannot be used to find negligence or negligence per se.

Citation: Sumrall v. Mississippi Power Co., 693 So. 2d 359 (Miss. 1997); Accu-Fab & Constr., Inc. v. Ladner, 778 So. 2d 766 (Miss. 2001).

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ms-supreme-court/1046152.html

Third-party contribution against the employer

Mississippi gives broad up-the-line immunity: a general contractor is immune even if it did not itself provide workers' compensation coverage, so long as coverage exists somewhere in the chain.

Where benefits are provided by either the subcontractor or the general contractor, compensation is the injured worker's exclusive remedy. General contractors receive immunity even where they do not themselves provide benefits, on the reasoning that the general contractor must stand in the subcontractor's place if the subcontractor fails to obtain coverage. Mississippi courts have not extended the same treatment down the line to subcontractors that fail to provide coverage.

Citation: Richmond v. Benchmark Constr. Corp., 692 So. 2d 60 (Miss. 1997); Bevis v. Linkous Constr. Co., 856 So. 2d 535 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003); Lamar v. Thomas Fowler Trucking, Inc., 956 So. 2d 911 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

Source: https://mississippilawjournal.org/up-the-line-immunity-a-gift-to-general-contractors/

Injury-severity gate on contribution claims

Mississippi requires actual intent to injure. Its Supreme Court has rejected the substantial certainty standard used in many other states.

Miss. Code § 71-3-1 et seq. makes workers-comp exclusive except for a willful tort committed with actual intent to injure the employee (Miller v. McRae's, Inc., 444 So.2d 368 (Miss. 1984)). In Franklin Corp. v. Tedford, 18 So.3d 215 (Miss. 2009), the Mississippi Supreme Court expressly declined to expand this to also cover employer conduct merely 'substantially certain' to cause injury, holding that mere knowledge that an injury was highly likely, even aggravated negligence, is not enough; only actual, specific intent to injure will pierce exclusivity. The court noted that any change to this narrow standard is a matter for the Legislature, not the courts.

Citation: Miss. Code § 71-3-1 et seq.; Franklin Corp. v. Tedford, 18 So.3d 215 (Miss. 2009); Miller v. McRae's, Inc., 444 So.2d 368 (Miss. 1984).

Source: https://www.leagle.com/decision/inmsco20090910192

Distinctive state doctrine

Up-the-line immunity: a general contractor can gain immunity by contractually requiring subcontractor coverage rather than securing it itself

The doctrine traces to Doubleday v. Boyd Construction Co., where the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a general contractor who contractually required its subcontractor to obtain workers' compensation insurance had secured compensation within the meaning of the Act and was entitled to statutory employer immunity. The court reasoned it would be paradoxical to expose that general contractor to more liability than one whose subcontractor skipped coverage. Richmond v. Benchmark Construction applied the doctrine, holding the general contractor had done all it could to hire a financially responsible subcontractor. A Mississippi Law Journal article criticises the doctrine as inconsistent with the plain language of Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-9. The doctrine has limits: a 2022 Court of Appeals decision held an oil well operator that leased the site was not a contractor entitled to the immunity, because it fell outside the ordinary meaning of prime or general contractor.

Citation: Doubleday v. Boyd Constr. Co., 418 So. 2d 823 (Miss. 1982); Richmond v. Benchmark Constr. Corp., 692 So. 2d 60 (Miss. 1997); Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-9

Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ms-supreme-court/1166949.html