Exclusive Remedy in Mississippi

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

Workers’ compensation is an employee’s exclusive remedy for injuries that arise out of employment and occur in the course of employment. Mississippi Code § 71-3-9.

This means that the employee may be able to recover medical benefits, wages, and disability benefits by filing a worker’s compensation claim. However, he or she cannot sue the employer (or co-employee) in tort (where the employee might obtain money damages), such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused his injury.

REQUIREMENTS FOR RULE TO APPLY

With some exceptions, the rule applies only if:

1. The employer has five or more employees, making it subject to the workers’ compensation act
2. The injury arises out of and occurs in the course of employment.
3. The injured worker is an employee (not an independent contractor or volunteer).

INTENTIONAL INJURY EXCEPTION

If an employer acts with a specific intent to injure the worker, it is not protected from a tort lawsuit. It is deemed to have waived immunity. However, this is a high bar for an employee to meet in Mississippi. The fact that the employer acts with reckless disregard to safety is not enough to trigger the exception.

EMPLOYER FAILS TO OBTAIN COVERAGE

If the employer fails to carry workers' compensation insurance, the employee can choose to either file a compensation claim or sue the employer in court.

THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS

The exclusivity rule does not apply to third parties, only the employer and co-employees. An injured worker can still pursue a "third-party claim" against a non-employer entity (e.g., a negligent equipment manufacturer or a driver from a different company)

BORROWED EMPLOYEES 

The exclusivity rule applies to “borrowed employees.” If a worker is a borrowed employee, the borrowing employer (the one borrowing the employee from another company, such as a staffing agency) becomes responsible for providing workers' compensation benefits. In exchange, that employer gains the protection of the exclusive remedy rule, meaning the worker generally cannot sue them in civil court for personal injury. Mississippi courts use a three-pronged test to determine if a borrowed servant relationship exists:

1. Direct control: Did the special employer have the right to control and direct the employee in the performance of her work?
2. Work performed: Was the work the employee performing the work of the special employer?
3. Agreement of the parties: Was there an agreement or understanding between the two employers and the employee regarding the working relationship?

BAD FAITH CLAIMS

Employees may sue a workers' compensation carrier directly for intentional torts or bad faith handling of a claim (e.g., a malicious and unfounded denial of benefits).

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE EXCEPTION

This exception involves the rare situation where the employer has a second legal relationship with the employee that is independent of the employment relationship. An example is a product manufacturer whose defective product injures the employee. Mississippi courts very rarely apply this exception.

Looking for exclusive remedy info for your state? Head to Simply Research.

RECENT CASES

Gibson v. Federal Express Corp., No. 5:24-cv-00040-DCB-LGI (S.D. Miss. 02/03/26)

A FedEx driver claimed he was chased and shot at by two men while on his delivery route. After reporting the attack and finding bullet holes in his vehicle, FedEx assigned him to the exact same route the following day. He claimed that FedEx intentionally forced him to return to the site of the trauma despite knowing his mental state. He sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. FedEx claimed it was immune to the lawsuit under the exclusive remedy provision. The court refused to dismiss the case because the driver alleged that FedEx acted with "actual intent" to cause him distress.

Adams v. Hinds County Sch. Dist., No. 421 So.3d 336 (Miss. Ct. App. 09/30/25).

A temporary agency hired a worker and assigned her as a cafeteria technician for a school district. She was injured at school when a ceiling tile fell on her. After settling a workers' compensation claim with the staffing agency, she sued the school district for negligence. The school district argued that it was entitled to a ruling in its favor based on the exclusivity rule. The court agreed. Even though the staffing agency technically hired her and paid the worker, the school district supervised her daily work. Because she was a borrowed employee, the school district had the same immunity from lawsuits as the staffing agency. 

Harris v. Hemphill Construction Company, Inc., No. 2023-CA-00973-SCT (Miss. 12/12/24)

The owner of a company that was a subcontractor for a builder was severely injured while working on a construction project. The owner sought workers' compensation benefits from the builder, but the owner had voluntarily opted out of the company's workers' compensation insurance coverage. Six months later, the owner brought a negligence claim against the builder. The court held that the builder secured payment by contractually requiring the subcontractor to obtain workers' compensation coverage and, thereby, "did all it could to ensure that it was hiring a financially responsible subcontractor who had secured coverage for its employees." According to the court, it was the owner's own action in withdrawing from coverage under the insurance policy that deprived him of benefits under the state's workers' compensation law. The state supreme court concluded that the builder was entitled to tort immunity because it had secured payment within the meaning of state law. It affirmed the trial court's decision. See full article.

EXCLUSIVITY RULE IN NEIGHBORING STATES

Tennessee

Alabama

Louisiana

Share This Article: