Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (2026)

Punitive damages; limitations

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) In any action in which punitive damages are sought:
- (a) Punitive damages may not be awarded if the claimant does not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant against whom punitive damages are sought acted with actual malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or committed actual fraud.
- (b) In any action in which the claimant seeks an award of punitive damages, the trier of fact shall first determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded and in what amount, before addressing any issues related to punitive damages.
- (c) If, but only if, an award of compensatory damages has been made against a party, the court shall promptly commence an evidentiary hearing to determine whether punitive damages may be considered by the same trier of fact.
- (d) The court shall determine whether the issue of punitive damages may be submitted to the trier of fact; and, if so, the trier of fact shall determine whether to award punitive damages and in what amount.
- (e) In all cases involving an award of punitive damages, the fact finder, in determining the amount of punitive damages, shall consider, to the extent relevant, the following: the defendant's financial condition and net worth; the nature and reprehensibility of the defendant's wrongdoing, for example, the impact of the defendant's conduct on the plaintiff, or the relationship of the defendant to the plaintiff; the defendant's awareness of the amount of harm being caused and the defendant's motivation in causing such harm; the duration of the defendant's misconduct and whether the defendant attempted to conceal such misconduct; and any other circumstances shown by the evidence that bear on determining a proper amount of punitive damages. The trier of fact shall be instructed that the primary purpose of punitive damages is to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar misconduct in the future by the defendant and others while the purpose of compensatory damages is to make the plaintiff whole.
- (f)
  - (i) Before entering judgment for an award of punitive damages the trial court shall ascertain that the award is reasonable in its amount and rationally related to the purpose to punish what occurred giving rise to the award and to deter its repetition by the defendant and others.
  - (ii) In determining whether the award is excessive, the court shall take into consideration the following factors:
    - 1. Whether there is a reasonable relationship between the punitive damage award and the harm likely to result from the defendant's conduct as well as the harm that actually occurred;
    - 2. The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the duration of that conduct, the defendant's awareness, any concealment, and the existence and frequency of similar past conduct;
    - 3. The financial condition and net worth of the defendant; and
    - 4. In mitigation, the imposition of criminal sanctions on the defendant for its conduct and the existence of other civil awards against the defendant for the same conduct.

(2) The seller of a product other than the manufacturer shall not be liable for punitive damages unless the seller exercised substantial control over that aspect of the design, testing, manufacture, packaging or labeling of the product that caused the harm for which recovery of damages is sought; the seller altered or modified the product, and the alteration or modification was a substantial factor in causing the harm for which recovery of damages is sought; the seller had actual knowledge of the defective condition of the product at the time he supplied same.

(3)
- (a) In any civil action where an entitlement to punitive damages shall have been established under applicable laws, no award of punitive damages shall exceed the following:
  - (i) Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00) for a defendant with a net worth of more than One Billion Dollars ($1,000,000,000.00);
  - (ii) Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000.00) for a defendant with a net worth of more than Seven Hundred Fifty Million Dollars ($750,000,000.00) but not more than One Billion Dollars ($1,000,000,000.00);
  - (iii) Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) for a defendant with a net worth of more than Five Hundred Million Dollars ($500,000,000.00) but not more than Seven Hundred Fifty Million Dollars ($750,000,000.00);
  - (iv) Three Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($3,750,000.00) for a defendant with a net worth of more than One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00) but not more than Five Hundred Million Dollars ($500,000,000.00);
  - (v) Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000.00) for a defendant with a net worth of more than Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00) but not more than One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00); or
  - (vi) Two percent (2%) of the defendant's net worth for a defendant with a net worth of Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00) or less.
- (b) For the purposes of determining the defendant's net worth in paragraph (a), the amount of the net worth shall be determined in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
- (c) The limitation on the amount of punitive damages imposed by this subsection (3) shall not be disclosed to the trier of fact, but shall be applied by the court to any punitive damages verdict.
- (d) The limitation on the amount of punitive damages imposed by this subsection (3) shall not apply to actions brought for damages or an injury resulting from an act or failure to act by the defendant:
  - (i) If the defendant was convicted of a felony under the laws of this state or under federal law which caused the damages or injury; or
  - (ii) While the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or under the influence of drugs other than lawfully prescribed drugs administered in accordance with a prescription.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating a right to an award of punitive damages or to limit the duty of the court, or the appellate courts, to scrutinize all punitive damage awards, ensure that all punitive damage awards comply with applicable procedural, evidentiary and constitutional requirements, and to order remittitur where appropriate.

Laws, 1993, ch. 302, § 2; Laws, 2002, 3rd Ex Sess, ch. 4, § 6; Laws, 2004, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 1, § 4, eff. 9/1/2004, and applicable to all causes of action filed on or after 9/1/2004.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 224 cases (60 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Franklin Corp. v. Tedford, 18 So. 3d 215 (Miss. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Franklin Corp. v. Tedford, 18 So. 3d 215 (Miss. 2009). · cites it 42× “" Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(a) (Rev.2002) (emphasis added).”

Bradfield v. Schwartz, 936 So. 2d 931 (Miss. 2006). · cites it 24× “Accordingly, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(c), the circuit court should have automatically proceeded to the punitive damages phase of the trial, where the judge and jury could then focus on the issue of punitive damages.”

Mississippi Medicaid Pharm. Average Wholesale Price Litig. v. State, 190 So. 3d 829 (Miss. 2015). · cites it 34× “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (3)(a) (Rev. 2014).”

Watson Labs., Inc. v. State of Mississippi, 241 So. 3d 573 (Miss. 2018). · cites it 20× “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(a) (Rev. 2014).”

Mississippi Valley Silica Co., Inc. v. Dorothy Barnett, 227 So. 3d 1102 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 16× “5 that the statutory cap on punitive damages, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (3)(a) (Rev. 2014), precluded any award of punitive damages.”

Alpha Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Jackson, 801 So. 2d 709 (Miss. 2001). · cites it 11× “Alpha contends that Jackson fails to rely on the applicable statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (Supp.2001), and that the statute supercedes some of the case law cited by Jackson.”

Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Williams, 936 So. 2d 888 (Miss. 2006). · cites it 14× “While there is more than ample case law concerning the substance of the bad faith refusal claim, and while we have clearly set forth the high threshold of conduct a party must prove a defendant committed before the party can recover punitive damages, we have not examined the…”

Paracelsus Health Care Corp. v. Willard, 754 So. 2d 437 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 15× “Moreover, as shall be shown below, this is a contract action to which § 11-1-65 does not apply. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65(2)(a)(Supp.”

AmSouth Bank v. Gupta, 838 So. 2d 205 (Miss. 2002). · cites it 14× “While the majority relies in part on the Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (2002), it overlooks the true intent of the statute.”

Hurst v. Sw. Miss. Legal Servs. Corp., 708 So. 2d 1347 (Miss. 1998). · cites it 18× “1997), determined that Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 is not applicable to actions for tortious breach of contract, which is contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeals here.”

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Salvation Army, 835 So. 2d 76 (Miss. 2003). · cites it 11× “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (Supp.2001) (emphasis added).”

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Stewart, 969 So. 2d 17 (Miss. 2007). · cites it 22× “As an aside, I note that this "bifurcation statute," which is Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (Supp.2007), has been on the books since 1993, though there have been recent amendments to the statute.”

Show all 224 citing cases →

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1) — 12 cases

AmSouth Bank v. Gupta, 838 So. 2d 205 (Miss. 2002). “While the majority relies in part on the Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (2002), it overlooks the true intent of the statute.”

Bradfield v. Schwartz, 936 So. 2d 931 (Miss. 2006). “Accordingly, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(c), the circuit court should have automatically proceeded to the punitive damages phase of the trial, where the judge and jury could then focus on the issue of punitive damages.”

MacK Trucks, Inc. v. Tackett, 841 So. 2d 1107 (Miss. 2003).

Summers v. St. Andrew's Episcopal Sch., Inc., 759 So. 2d 1203 (Miss. 2000).

Gamble v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 852 So. 2d 5 (Miss. 2003).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a) — 46 cases

Watson Labs., Inc. v. State of Mississippi, 241 So. 3d 573 (Miss. 2018). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(a) (Rev. 2014).”

Tunica Cnty., Mississippi v. Town of Tunica, Mississippi, 227 So. 3d 1007 (Miss. 2017).

Fitch v. Valentine, 959 So. 2d 1012 (Miss. 2007).

Warren v. Derivaux, 996 So. 2d 729 (Miss. 2008).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a)(2002) — 1 case

Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 832 So. 2d 474 (Miss. 2002).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a)(e) — 1 case

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(b) — 6 cases

Paracelsus Health Care Corp. v. Willard, 754 So. 2d 437 (Miss. 1999). “Moreover, as shall be shown below, this is a contract action to which § 11-1-65 does not apply. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65(2)(a)(Supp.”

Union Carbide Corp. v. Nix, 142 So. 3d 374 (Miss. 2014).

Henson v. Riggenbach, 982 So. 2d 432 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Sumler v. East Ford, Inc., 915 So. 2d 1081 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Dickens v. Autozone, Inc. (S.D. Miss. 2021).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(c) — 14 cases

Ferrara v. Walters, 919 So. 2d 876 (Miss. 2005).

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Stewart, 969 So. 2d 17 (Miss. 2007). “As an aside, I note that this "bifurcation statute," which is Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (Supp.2007), has been on the books since 1993, though there have been recent amendments to the statute.”

AmSouth Bank v. Gupta, 838 So. 2d 205 (Miss. 2002). “While the majority relies in part on the Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (2002), it overlooks the true intent of the statute.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(c)(d) — 1 case

Henson v. Riggenbach, 982 So. 2d 432 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(d) — 6 cases

Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Salvation Army, 835 So. 2d 76 (Miss. 2003). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (Supp.2001) (emphasis added).”

Alpha Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Jackson, 801 So. 2d 709 (Miss. 2001). “Alpha contends that Jackson fails to rely on the applicable statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (Supp.2001), and that the statute supercedes some of the case law cited by Jackson.”

AmSouth Bank v. Gupta, 838 So. 2d 205 (Miss. 2002). “While the majority relies in part on the Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (2002), it overlooks the true intent of the statute.”

Cmty. Bank, Ellisville, Ms v. Courtney, 884 So. 2d 767 (Miss. 2004).

Thomas v. Harrah's Vicksburg Corp., 734 So. 2d 312 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(e) — 12 cases

Franklin Corp. v. Tedford, 18 So. 3d 215 (Miss. 2009). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(a) (Rev.2002) (emphasis added).”

Watson Labs., Inc. v. State of Mississippi, 241 So. 3d 573 (Miss. 2018). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(a) (Rev. 2014).”

Fred's Stores of Miss. v. M & H DRUGS, 725 So. 2d 902 (Miss. 1998).

McCorkle v. McCorkle, 811 So. 2d 258 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).

Union Carbide Corp. v. Nix, 142 So. 3d 374 (Miss. 2014).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(f) — 1 case

Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tuckier, 826 So. 2d 679 (Miss. 2002).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(f)(I) — 2 cases

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(f)(i)(ii) — 1 case

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(f)(ii) — 2 cases

Roy Bradfield v. Richard B. Schwartz (Miss. 2004).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(f)(ii)(3) — 1 case

Angela T. Lairy, Turner & Assocs., PLLC, Carolyn T. Karriem & the Est. of Bennie L. Turner v. Lori Chandler (Miss. Ct. App. 2021).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(2) — 3 cases

United States Fid. & Guar. v. Knight, 882 So. 2d 85 (Miss. 2004).

Am. Funeral Assur. Co. v. Hubbs, 700 So. 2d 283 (Miss. 1997).

Am. Funeral Assur Co v. Daisy Hubbs (Miss. 1994).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(2)(a) — 4 cases

Hurst v. Sw. Miss. Legal Servs. Corp., 708 So. 2d 1347 (Miss. 1998). “1997), determined that Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 is not applicable to actions for tortious breach of contract, which is contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeals here.”

Geraldine Hurst v. Sw. MS Legal Servs Corp (Miss. 1993).

Carolyn Willard v. Paracelsus Health Care Corp. (Miss. 1992).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(3) — 6 cases

Franklin Corp. v. Tedford, 18 So. 3d 215 (Miss. 2009). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(a) (Rev.2002) (emphasis added).”

Mississippi Valley Silica Co., Inc. v. Dorothy Barnett, 227 So. 3d 1102 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “5 that the statutory cap on punitive damages, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (3)(a) (Rev. 2014), precluded any award of punitive damages.”

Canadian Nat'l Ry. Co. v. Waltman, 94 So. 3d 1111 (Miss. 2012).

Mississippi Medicaid Pharm. Average Wholesale Price Litig. v. State, 190 So. 3d 829 (Miss. 2015). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (3)(a) (Rev. 2014).”

Kenneth Moore v. Roy D. McDonald, 210 So. 3d 563 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(3)(a) — 4 cases

Mississippi Medicaid Pharm. Average Wholesale Price Litig. v. State, 190 So. 3d 829 (Miss. 2015). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (3)(a) (Rev. 2014).”

Franklin Corp. v. Tedford, 18 So. 3d 215 (Miss. 2009). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(a) (Rev.2002) (emphasis added).”

H. Kenneth Lefoldt, Jr v. Donald Rentfro, 241 So. 3d 565 (Miss. 2017).

Affordable Care, LLC v. JNM Off. Prop. LLC (S.D. Miss. 2022).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(3)(a)(iv) — 1 case

Mississippi Medicaid Pharm. Average Wholesale Price Litig. v. State, 190 So. 3d 829 (Miss. 2015). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (3)(a) (Rev. 2014).”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(3)(a)(v) — 2 cases

Franklin Corp. v. Tedford, 18 So. 3d 215 (Miss. 2009). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(a) (Rev.2002) (emphasis added).”

Franklin Corp. v. Pauline Tedford (Miss. 2007).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(3)(a)(vi) — 2 cases

Franklin Corp. v. Tedford, 18 So. 3d 215 (Miss. 2009). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(a) (Rev.2002) (emphasis added).”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(3)(b) — 1 case

Mississippi Medicaid Pharm. Average Wholesale Price Litig. v. State, 190 So. 3d 829 (Miss. 2015). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (3)(a) (Rev. 2014).”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(3)(c) — 1 case

James v. Antarctic Mech. Servs., Inc. (S.D. Miss. 2021).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(a) — 3 cases

Irby v. Travis, 935 So. 2d 884 (Miss. 2006).

Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (S.D. Miss. 2025).

Arthur Irby v. Mary Travis (Miss. 2003).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(a)(1) — 3 cases

In Re Guardianship of Duckett, 991 So. 2d 1165 (Miss. 2008).

Patterson v. Holleman, 917 So. 2d 125 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Nuzzo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (S.D. Miss. 2021).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(b) — 4 cases

Redhead v. Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 828 So. 2d 801 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).

United States Fid. & Guar. v. Knight, 882 So. 2d 85 (Miss. 2004).

Harbin v. Jennings, 734 So. 2d 269 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).

James v. Antarctic Mech. Servs., Inc. (S.D. Miss. 2021).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(c) — 7 cases

Henry Roop v. S. Pharm. Corp., 188 So. 3d 1179 (Miss. 2016).

Causey v. Sanders, 998 So. 2d 393 (Miss. 2008).

Horace Mann Life Ins. Co. v. Nunaley, 960 So. 2d 455 (Miss. 2007).

William Leo Boatright & Kelley Boatright v. A & H Tech., Inc., Chester H. Abbott & Carol Abbott (Miss. 2020).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(e) — 4 cases

Patterson v. Holleman, 917 So. 2d 125 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Choctaw Maid Farms, Inc. v. Hailey, 822 So. 2d 911 (Miss. 2002).

United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Est. of Sylvia F. Minor, Kathryn Minor & Stephen Minor (Miss. 2024).

Choctaw Maid Farms, Inc. v. Elizabeth F. Hailey (Miss. 1998).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(f) — 1 case

United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Est. of Sylvia F. Minor, Kathryn Minor & Stephen Minor (Miss. 2024).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(f)(i) — 1 case

James v. Antarctic Mech. Servs., Inc. (S.D. Miss. 2021).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(f)(ii) — 1 case

Tommy A Dabbs v. James Irby (Miss. 1994).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(f)(ii)(1) — 3 cases

Choctaw Maid Farms, Inc. v. Hailey, 822 So. 2d 911 (Miss. 2002).

Philip T. Cascio, Jr. v. Cascio Investments, LLC, Jackie Cascio Pearson & Phyllis Cascio (Miss. 2021).

Choctaw Maid Farms, Inc. v. Elizabeth F. Hailey (Miss. 1998).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(l)(a) — 1 case

James v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 743 F.3d 65 (5th Cir. 2014).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(l)(c) — 1 case

Boddie v. Walker, 280 F. Supp. 3d 920 (N.D. Miss. 2017).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(l)(e) — 2 cases

Barbara Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., Farrar Oilfield Serv. & Equip. Co., & Tri-State Oil Servs., Inc., Tri-State Oil Servs., Inc., 63 F.3d 1326 (5th Cir. 1995).

Georgia Pac. Corp. v. Cook Timber Co., Inc., 194 So. 3d 118 (Miss. 2016).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.