Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-20 (2026)
Privity unnecessary to maintain actions in negligence, strict liability or breach of warranty
✓ current as of July 2026
In all causes of action for personal injury or property damage or economic loss brought on account of negligence, strict liability or breach of warranty, including actions brought under the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, privity shall not be a requirement to maintain said action.
Laws, 1976, ch. 385, § 5, eff. 4/27/1976.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Century 21 Deep South Prop., Ltd. v. Corson, 612 So. 2d 359 (Miss. 1992).
Century 21 Deep South Prop., Ltd. v. Corson, 612 So. 2d 359 (Miss. 1992). “Instead, they rely on Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-20 (Supp. 1990), which abolished the necessity of privity in "all causes of action for .”
Theresa Huck v. Wyeth, Inc. D/B/A Wyeth Schwarz Pharma, Inc. & Pliva, Inc., 850 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 2014). “brought on account of negligence’ ” (quoting Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-20 (West, Westlaw through 2014 Regular (end) and First Extraordinary (end) Sess.”
Sara R. Alexander, Individually & as Adm'x of the Est. of Alvin A. Alexander, Deceased v. Conveyors & Dumpers, Inc., 731 F.2d 1221 (5th Cir. 1984). “Mississippi’s legislature has abolished any requirement of privity in negligence and strict liability actions, Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-20 (1976), 2 and the statute of limitations governing those causes of action does not begin to run until the date of injury, Ford Motor Co.”
Bryant Elec. Co., Inc. v. City of Fredericksburg & Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 762 F.2d 1192 (4th Cir. 1985). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-20 (Supp.1976). 6 .”
Watson Quality Ford, Inc. v. Casanova, 999 So. 2d 830 (Miss. 2008). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-20 (Rev.2004). ¶ 10.”
Paul v. Landsafe Flood Determination, Inc., 550 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2008). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-20. Second, the court arguably broadened the Touche Ross rule and held that while those who “request and receive an audit report or a termite inspection report may be within the ambit of the defendant’s duty, it does not follow on principle that those who…”
Touche Ross & Co. v. Com. Union Ins. Co., 514 So. 2d 315 (Miss. 1987). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-20 (Supp. 1986) reads, "In all causes of action for personal injury or property damage or economic loss brought on account of negligence, strict liability or breach of warranty, including actions brought under the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code,…”
Fedders Corp. v. Boatright, 493 So. 2d 301 (Miss. 1986). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-20 (1972) abolished any requirement of privity to maintain an action against the manufacturer for a defective product, and Fedders was a "seller" within the code definition.”
Hayden Bus. Ctr. Condos. Ass'n v. Pegasus Dev. Corp., 105 P.3d 157 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “2d at 730 -31 (quoting Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-20 ). Moyer , a trial court opinion, did find privity was not required in a lawsuit brought by a subsequent purchaser of an apartment building.”
Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Novak, 418 So. 2d 801 (Miss. 1982). “Appellee points out that Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-20 (Supp. 1981), abolished privity of contract for breach of warranty claims including actions brought under the Uniform Commercial Code.”
Great Am. E & S Ins. Co. v. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., 100 So. 3d 420 (Miss. 2012). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-20 (Rev.2004). . Corson, 612 So.”
Owen v. Dodd, 431 F. Supp. 1239 (N.D. Miss. 1977). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-20 (Supp.1976). 4 Indeed, the subcontractor’s status in Grenfell, forecast well in advance of the cited statute, was arguably more remote than Owen, the general contractor here.”
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.