Can a Mississippi city add a private third party as an additional named insured on the city's liability insurance policy?

Plain-English summary

The City of Gulfport's attorney asked whether the city can name a private third party as an additional insured on the city's liability insurance policy. The AG said no.

Two strands of Mississippi law combine to produce the answer:

1. The Mississippi Tort Claims Act is the exclusive remedy against governmental entities. Moton v. City of Clarksdale (Miss. 2023) confirms that any tort lawsuit against a governmental entity for money damages goes through the MTCA framework. The MTCA defines who is covered (governmental entities and their agents) and how. Private third parties are not in the coverage circle.

2. Mississippi prohibits municipalities from indemnifying third parties. A 1998 AG opinion (also issued to Gulfport's Mr. Bruni) established that a municipality cannot "obligate itself to indemnify or hold harmless a [private individual or entity], since coverage of the municipality under the Tort Claims Act may not be extended to a private individual or entity."

Adding a third party as an additional insured on the city's liability policy is functionally equivalent to indemnifying that third party. The city's policy would defend and pay claims against the third party in the same way it would against the city itself. That extends the city's coverage to a non-governmental entity, which neither the MTCA nor § 11-46-17 (the MTCA insurance authority) authorizes.

A different way to think about it: a city can do only what statutes authorize. The MTCA authorizes insurance for the governmental entity. Adding a third party requires statutory authority that does not exist. The 2006 Stringer opinion captured the doctrinal frame: governmental entities can only do what statutes authorize them to do.

What this means for you

If you are a city attorney negotiating with vendors or contractors

Vendors often ask cities to add them as additional insureds on the city's policy. The standard answer is no, under this opinion. Push back on the request and offer alternatives:

1. Vendor's own coverage. The vendor carries its own insurance, and the city is named as a loss payee or certificate holder (not an additional insured), confirming the vendor's coverage.

2. Mutual indemnity carve-out. Each party covers its own people and property. The contract makes clear neither indemnifies the other.

3. Hold-harmless from the vendor only. The vendor agrees to hold the city harmless for vendor's actions. The city does not reciprocate.

The contract negotiation can settle around any of these structures. What the city cannot do is what the vendor often initially asks for: be added as an additional insured on the city's policy.

If you are a vendor or contractor doing business with a Mississippi city

Do not rely on being named as an additional insured on the city's policy as your liability protection. The opinion is clear: the city cannot lawfully do that. Carry your own liability coverage, scaled to the work you are doing for the city, and structure your contract terms accordingly.

If you sell insurance to Mississippi cities

When a Mississippi municipal client asks you to add a vendor or third party as an additional insured, flag the legal issue. The 2024 Bruni AG opinion is the controlling authority, and a city official who agrees to such an arrangement may be exceeding municipal authority.

If you are a city risk manager

Build a vendor onboarding checklist that screens out additional-insured requests from the start. Have a standardized response that explains the legal limit, references the AG opinion, and offers the alternative structures.

If you are a private organization that has been added as an additional insured on a Mississippi city's policy historically

Re-examine the arrangement. The AG has been clear that Mississippi municipalities cannot lawfully extend their coverage. If you are relying on that arrangement, your coverage may be void or unenforceable. Get your own primary coverage and treat the municipal addition as supplementary at best (and possibly as nonexistent).

Common questions

Q: Why can't a city extend its coverage to a third party?
A: Two reasons. (1) The Tort Claims Act limits coverage to governmental entities and their agents. (2) Adding a third party as an additional insured functions as indemnification, and Mississippi prohibits municipalities from indemnifying private parties. The two reasons reinforce each other.

Q: Is a board of supervisors (county) bound by the same rule?
A: Yes. The MTCA covers governmental entities broadly, and counties are governmental entities. The same prohibition on extending coverage to private parties applies to counties.

Q: What about state agencies?
A: Same MTCA framework. State agencies are governmental entities under the MTCA, and the AG's reasoning would apply equally.

Q: Can a city ever add a sister governmental entity as an additional insured?
A: That is a different question and not directly addressed in this opinion. Adding another governmental entity might be permissible because both are within the MTCA framework. But there is no general statutory authority for it either, and the AG's reasoning ("a governmental entity can only do that which statute authorizes") would point toward no without specific authorization. Consult counsel for a particular intergovernmental arrangement.

Q: Does this affect liability for joint operations like multi-city emergency response?
A: Joint operations between governmental entities have their own statutory frameworks (interlocal agreements, mutual aid statutes). The AG opinion is about adding private parties to a single city's policy. Multi-governmental cooperation is governed by separate authorities.

Q: Can a private contractor's liability policy add the city as an additional insured?
A: Yes, that is the reverse direction and is common practice. The contractor (a private entity) extends its own coverage to include the city. Nothing in the opinion prohibits the contractor from doing this.

Q: What if state law later authorizes this?
A: The AG's analysis is statutory. If the legislature amends the MTCA or adds a separate authority for adding third parties as additional insureds, the answer would change. Until then, the answer is no.

Background and statutory framework

The Mississippi Tort Claims Act, §§ 11-46-1 et seq., sets the framework for tort claims against Mississippi governmental entities. The exclusive-remedy provision is the operative principle: the MTCA "provides the exclusive civil remedy against a governmental entity for lawsuits seeking money damages arising out of tortious actions" (Moton v. City of Clarksdale, 367 So. 3d 979, 983 (Miss. 2023)).

Section 11-46-17 authorizes governmental entities to obtain insurance policies. The statute is silent on adding third parties; no provision contemplates it.

The 1998 Bruni AG opinion (the earlier one, also from Gulfport) established the indemnification prohibition. The 2006 Stringer AG opinion established the framing rule that governmental entities can only do what statutes authorize.

The 2024 Bruni opinion (the present one) brings these strands together. Adding a third party as an additional insured is functionally indemnification, and the MTCA does not authorize it.

Citations

• Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-46-1 et seq.
• Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-17
• Moton v. City of Clarksdale, 367 So. 3d 979 (Miss. 2023)
• MS AG Op., Bruni (May 22, 1998)
• MS AG Op., Stringer (Jan. 25, 2006)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/J.Bruni-June-24-2024-Additional-Named-Insured-Under-Municipal-Liability-Policy.pdf

Original opinion text

June 24, 2024
Jeffrey S. Bruni, Esq.
Attorney, City of Gulfport
Post Office Box 1780
Gulfport, Mississippi 39502-1780
Re: Additional Named Insured Under Municipal Liability Policy

Dear Mr. Bruni:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.

Question Presented
May a municipality legally name a third party as an additional named insured on its liability insurance policy/plan?

Brief Response
A municipality may not name a third party as an additional insured on its liability insurance policy.

Applicable Law and Discussion
"The Mississippi Tort Claims Act provides the exclusive civil remedy against a governmental entity for lawsuits seeking money damages arising out of tortious actions." Moton v. City of Clarksdale, 367 So. 3d 979, 983 (Miss. 2023) (citing Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-46-1, et seq.). As noted in your request, this office has previously opined that a municipality may not "obligate itself to indemnify or hold harmless a [private individual or entity], since coverage of the municipality under the Tort Claims Act may not be extended to a private individual or entity." MS AG Op., Bruni at *1 (May 22, 1998) (citing Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-46-1, et seq.). You ask if a municipality may nonetheless legally name a third party as an additional insured on its liability policy.

In MS AG Op., Stringer (Jan. 25, 2006), this office highlighted that a governmental entity can only do that which statute authorizes it to do. Id. at *2-3. This said, the Tort Claims Act does not provide any authority for adding a third party to a governmental entity's coverage. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-17 (providing for obtaining policies of insurance and lacking language regarding adding a third party or necessary implication for the same). Further, adding a third party as an additional insured would essentially amount to an agreement to indemnify, which, as discussed above, governmental entities may not do. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that a municipality may not name a third party as an additional insured on its liability insurance policy.

If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Maggie Kate Bobo
Maggie Kate Bobo
Special Assistant Attorney General