Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7 (2026)

Exclusiveness of remedy; joinder of government employee; immunity for acts or omissions occurring within course and scope of employee's duties; provision of defense for and payment of judgments or settlements of claims against employees; contribution or indemnification by employee

✓ current as of July 2026

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

(1) The remedy provided by this chapter against a governmental entity or its employee is exclusive of any other civil action or civil proceeding by reason of the same subject matter against the governmental entity or its employee or the estate of the employee for the act or omission which gave rise to the claim or suit; and any claim made or suit filed against a governmental entity or its employee to recover damages for any injury for which immunity has been waived under this chapter shall be brought only under the provisions of this chapter, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary.

(2) An employee may be joined in an action against a governmental entity in a representative capacity if the act or omission complained of is one for which the governmental entity may be liable, but no employee shall be held personally liable for acts or omissions occurring within the course and scope of the employee's duties. For the purposes of this chapter an employee shall not be considered as acting within the course and scope of his employment and a governmental entity shall not be liable or be considered to have waived immunity for any conduct of its employee if the employee's conduct constituted fraud, malice, libel, slander, defamation or any criminal offense.

(3) From and after July 1, 1993, as to the state, from and after October 1, 1993, as to political subdivisions, and subject to the provisions of this chapter, every governmental entity shall be responsible for providing a defense to its employees and for the payment of any judgment in any civil action or the settlement of any claim against an employee for money damages arising out of any act or omission within the course and scope of his employment; provided, however, that to the extent that a governmental entity has in effect a valid and current certificate of coverage issued by the board as provided in Section 11-46-17, or in the case of a political subdivision, such political subdivision has a plan or policy of insurance and/or reserves which the board has approved as providing satisfactory security for the defense and protection of the political subdivision against all claims and suits for injury for which immunity has been waived under this chapter, the governmental entity's duty to indemnify and/or defend such claim on behalf of its employee shall be secondary to the obligation of any such insurer or indemnitor, whose obligation shall be primary. The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed to alter or relieve any such indemnitor or insurer of any legal obligation to such employee or to any governmental entity vicariously liable on account of or legally responsible for damages due to the allegedly wrongful error, omissions, conduct, act or deed of such employee.

(4) The responsibility of a governmental entity to provide a defense for its employee shall apply whether the claim is brought in a court of this or any other state or in a court of the United States.

(5) A governmental entity shall not be entitled to contribution or indemnification, or reimbursement for legal fees and expenses from its employee unless a court shall find that the act or omission of the employee was outside the course and scope of his employment. Any action by a governmental entity against its employee and any action by an employee against the governmental entity for contribution, indemnification, or necessary legal fees and expenses shall be tried to the court in the same suit brought on the claim against the governmental entity or its employee.

(6) The duty to defend and to pay any judgment as provided in subsection (3) of this section shall continue after employment with the governmental entity has been terminated, if the occurrence for which liability is alleged happened within the course and scope of duty while the employee was in the employ of the governmental entity.

(7) For the purposes of this chapter and not otherwise, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that any act or omission of an employee within the time and at the place of his employment is within the course and scope of his employment.

(8) Nothing in this chapter shall enlarge or otherwise adversely affect the personal liability of an employee of a governmental entity. Any immunity or other bar to a civil suit under Mississippi or federal law shall remain in effect. The fact that a governmental entity may relieve an employee from all necessary legal fees and expenses and any judgment arising from the civil lawsuit shall not under any circumstances be communicated to the trier of fact in the civil lawsuit.

Laws, 1984, ch. 495, § 5; reenacted and amended, Laws, 1985, ch. 474, § 4; reenacted and amended, Laws, 1986, ch. 438, § 3; Laws, 1987, ch. 483, § 4; Laws, 1988, ch. 442, § 4; Laws, 1989, ch. 537, § 4; Laws, 1990, ch. 518, § 4; Laws, 1991, ch. 618, § 4; Laws, 1992, ch. 491 § 6; Laws, 1993, ch. 476, § 3, eff. 4/1/1993.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 294 cases (44 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Gale v. Thomas, 759 So. 2d 1150 (Miss. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gale v. Thomas, 759 So. 2d 1150 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 24× “The plain language of the statute in force at the time of the collision clearly and expressly excepts employees from statutory immunity under Section 11-46-7 of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act if the conduct of the employee involved "any criminal offense.”

City of Jackson v. Powell, 917 So. 2d 59 (Miss. 2005). · cites it 14× “" The trial court further stated "the injury occurred after the commission of any alleged offense and after [Powell] was subdued and handcuffed.”

Tallahatchie Gen. Hosp. v. Howe, 49 So. 3d 86 (Miss. 2010). · cites it 12× “See also Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7 (1) (Rev.2002) ("[t]he remedy provided by this chapter against a governmental entity or its employee is exclusive *91 of any other civil action or civil proceeding by reason of the same subject matter against the governmental entity or its…”

City of Jackson v. Harris, 44 So. 3d 927 (Miss. 2010). · cites it 12× “Under Mississippi Code Section 11-46-7, the MTCA provides the exclusive civil remedy for tort actions against the state, its political subdivisions, and its employees.”

Stewart Ex Rel. Womack v. City of Jackson, 804 So. 2d 1041 (Miss. 2002). · cites it 8× “The MTCA waives sovereign immunity from claims for money damages arising out of the torts of governmental entities and their employees.”

The Univ. of Mississippi Med. Ctr. v. Enoch Oliver, 235 So. 3d 75 (Miss. 2017). · cites it 7× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7 (2); see also Rogers v.”

Jones v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp.-golden, 735 So. 2d 993 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 17× “2 (1992) as well as Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-7(2) determine the outcome of this case, as they are controlling regarding the law of sovereign immunity in causes of action which accrued from September 16, 1992 until April 1, 1993.”

Cotton v. Paschall, 782 So. 2d 1215 (Miss. 2001). · cites it 19× “The court ruled that Paschall cannot be held personally liable and should be dismissed.”

Johnson v. City of Cleveland, 846 So. 2d 1031 (Miss. 2003). · cites it 8× “" After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the City finding Officer Oswalt, "who was responding to a call, did not act with reckless disregard as defined by Miss.”

Conrod v. Holder, 825 So. 2d 16 (Miss. 2002). · cites it 8× “In a case interpreting Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-7, handed down this year, the Mississippi Court of Appeals noted that "the Tort Claims Act requires that a governmental entity against which a money judgment is sought must be named as a defendant.”

Lawrence Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Brister, 823 So. 2d 459 (Miss. 2001). · cites it 10× “See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 11-46-7(2) & -9 (Supp.2001).”

Gorton v. Rance, 52 So. 3d 351 (Miss. 2011). · cites it 10× “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-7 (Rev.2002). Dr. Gorton argues that the documentation before the trial court established his status as an employee of Greenwood Leflore Hospital and it was not a genuine issue of material fact.”

Show all 294 citing cases →

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7(1) — 69 cases

City of Jackson v. Sutton, 797 So. 2d 977 (Miss. 2001).

City of Jackson v. Powell, 917 So. 2d 59 (Miss. 2005). “" The trial court further stated "the injury occurred after the commission of any alleged offense and after [Powell] was subdued and handcuffed.”

Tallahatchie Gen. Hosp. v. Howe, 49 So. 3d 86 (Miss. 2010). “See also Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7 (1) (Rev.2002) ("[t]he remedy provided by this chapter against a governmental entity or its employee is exclusive *91 of any other civil action or civil proceeding by reason of the same subject matter against the governmental entity or its…”

LW v. McComb Separate Mun. Sch. Dist., 754 So. 2d 1136 (Miss. 1999).

Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Magee, 29 So. 3d 1 (Miss. 2010).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7(1)(2002) — 1 case

Wright v. Quesnel, 876 So. 2d 362 (Miss. 2004).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7(1)(b) — 3 cases

Mississippi Dept. of Transp. v. Cargile, 847 So. 2d 258 (Miss. 2003).

Fairley v. George Cnty., 871 So. 2d 713 (Miss. 2004).

Evelyn Fairley v. George Cnty., Mississippi (Miss. 2003).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7(2) — 103 cases

Gale v. Thomas, 759 So. 2d 1150 (Miss. 1999). “The plain language of the statute in force at the time of the collision clearly and expressly excepts employees from statutory immunity under Section 11-46-7 of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act if the conduct of the employee involved "any criminal offense.”

Duncan Ex Rel. Duncan v. Chamblee, 757 So. 2d 946 (Miss. 1999).

City of Jackson v. Harris, 44 So. 3d 927 (Miss. 2010). “Under Mississippi Code Section 11-46-7, the MTCA provides the exclusive civil remedy for tort actions against the state, its political subdivisions, and its employees.”

Stewart Ex Rel. Womack v. City of Jackson, 804 So. 2d 1041 (Miss. 2002). “The MTCA waives sovereign immunity from claims for money damages arising out of the torts of governmental entities and their employees.”

Jones v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp.-golden, 735 So. 2d 993 (Miss. 1999). “2 (1992) as well as Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-7(2) determine the outcome of this case, as they are controlling regarding the law of sovereign immunity in causes of action which accrued from September 16, 1992 until April 1, 1993.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7(2)(1991) — 2 cases

Danny G. Jones v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp.-Golden Triangle, Inc. (Miss. 1998).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7(2)(2001) — 1 case

Conrod v. Holder, 825 So. 2d 16 (Miss. 2002). “In a case interpreting Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-7, handed down this year, the Mississippi Court of Appeals noted that "the Tort Claims Act requires that a governmental entity against which a money judgment is sought must be named as a defendant.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7(3) — 39 cases

Cotton v. Paschall, 782 So. 2d 1215 (Miss. 2001). “The court ruled that Paschall cannot be held personally liable and should be dismissed.”

Harris v. Mississippi Valley State Univ., 873 So. 2d 970 (Miss. 2004).

Lawrence Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Brister, 823 So. 2d 459 (Miss. 2001). “See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 11-46-7(2) & -9 (Supp.2001).”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7(4) — 1 case

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7(5) — 4 cases

Franklin Mem. Hosp. v. Ms. Farm Bureau Ins., 975 So. 2d 872 (Miss. 2008).

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

W. Sur. Co. v. Cook Coggin Engineers, Inc.; Kyle Strong, P.E.; & M. Carrson Neal, P.E. (N.D. Miss. 2026).

Franklin Cnty. Mem'l Hosp. v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. (Miss. 2006).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7(7) — 5 cases

Cockrell v. Pearl River Valley Water Dist., 865 So. 2d 357 (Miss. 2004).

Singley v. Smith, 739 So. 2d 448 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).

Newton Cnty. v. State ex rel. Dukes, 133 So. 3d 819 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).

Underwood v. Mississippi Dep't of Corr. (S.D. Miss. 2019).

Adams (S.D. Miss. 2026).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7(8) — 1 case

Franklin Mem. Hosp. v. Ms. Farm Bureau Ins., 975 So. 2d 872 (Miss. 2008).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7(a) — 1 case

Mitchell v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 481 F. Supp. 2d 586 (S.D. Miss. 2006).

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.