limitation of liability clause (Mississippi) · Go Syfert
← Mississippi issues

limitation of liability clause in Mississippi

11 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Pitts v. Watkinsgreen
miss · 2005 · cited in 7 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2005–2026
2 sentences

2026Moreover, the supreme court concluded that when working in conjunction with one another, the limitation of liability clause and the arbitration clause “effectively denie[d] the [Pittses] of an adequate remedy” and provided “further evidence of substantive unconscionability.” Id. at (¶15).

2014Pitts, 905 So.2d at 557 (stating that "the limitation of liability clause, when paired with the arbitration clause, effectively denies the plaintiff of an adequate remedy and is further evidence of substantive unconscionability”). .

57
Lucier v. Williamsgreen
njsuperctappdiv · 2004 · cited in 4 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2003–2014
2 sentences

2014The Court quoted Lucier v. Williams, 366 NJ.Super. 485, 493, 841 A.2d 907, 912 (2004), which found a limitation-of-liability clause in a home-inspection contract to be unconscionable for these reasons: (1) the contract, prepared by the home inspector, is one of adhesion; (2) the parties, one a consumer and the other a professional expert, have grossly unequal bargaining status, and (3) the substance of the provision eviscerates the contract and its fundamental purpose because the potential damages level is so nominal that it has the practical effect of avoiding almost all responsibility for th

2011Super. 485, 493 , 841 A.2d 907, 912 (2004), which found a limitation-of-liability clause in a home-inspection contract to be unconscionable for these reasons: (1) the contract, prepared by the home inspector, is one of adhesion; (2) the parties, one a consumer and the other a professional expert, have grossly unequal bargaining status, and (3) the substance of the provision eviscerates the contract and its fundamental purpose because the potential damages level is so nominal that it has the practical effect of avoiding almost all responsibility for the professional’s negligence.

34

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor green
miss · 2002
2 sentences

2005"Substantively unconscionable clauses have been held to include waiver of choice of forum and waiver of certain remedies." East Ford, 826 So.2d at 714 .

2003“Substantively unconscionable clauses have been held to include waiver of choice of forum and waiver of certain remedies.” East Ford, 826 So. 2d at 714 .

22003–2005
Jimmie Elsken, Administrator of the Estate of Patricia Ann Elsken v. Network Multi-Family Security Corporation, a Foreign Corporation green
ca10 · 1995
2 sentences

2007Id. at 1474 .

2007Id.

12007–2007
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Bridges green
miss · 1977
1 sentence

1979However, there were other bases of distinguishing Talbot and we addressed one of these in Bridges by stating the limitation of liability clause in Talbot , unlike that in Bridges and this case, unambiguously limited the insurer's uninsured motorist liability to "`the minimum limits required by the Uninsured Motorist statute. . . .'" 350 So.2d at 1381 .

11979–1979

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MS § Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-302 (6) MS § Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49 (5) MS § Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-5 (5) USC § 9u.s.c.10 (4) USC § 9u.s.c.2 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 22 (1978–2025) NY 21 (1931–2025) CA 17 (1987–2026) GA 13 (1944–2023) OH 12 (1973–2015) LA 12 (1975–2018) MS 11 (1979–2026) PA 10 (1969–2024) IL 9 (1981–2015) IN 8 (1983–2004) NJ 7 (1977–2019) WV 7 (1985–2017) NC 5 (1990–2024) NM 5 (1994–2015) CO 5 (1961–2013) AZ 5 (1977–2023) KS 4 (1993–2009) CT 4 (1992–2002) FL 4 (1963–2011) OR 4 (1930–2022) MA 3 (1995–2018) OK 3 (1992–2006) NE 3 (1997–2025) AL 3 (1993–2005) DE 3 (1977–2019) AR 3 (1992–2013) SD 3 (2002–2002) WA 3 (1999–2002) MT 2 (1973–2017) HI 2 (2009–2017) MI 2 (1969–1986) MO 2 (2009–2013) NH 2 (1986–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check