MS STATEMississippi Supreme Court
1999

Sentinel Indus. Cont. v. Kimmins Indus.

743 So. 2d 954Mississippi Supreme Court • Decided 1999Enforced
Change OrderFlow-DownCited 53 times

HOLDING

Kimmins, a subcontractor, performed extra work on an ammonia plant dismantlement project but never received written change orders. The owner kept demanding work while refusing to issue change orders. The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that Kimmins could recover payment for the extra work anyway, using the legal doctrine of equitable estoppel. The court found the owner's conduct—requiring work while denying change orders—was unfair enough to override the contract's change order requirement.

KEY FINDINGS

Change Order

Document all extra work requests in writing immediately, even if the owner refuses to issue a formal change order. Keep emails, texts, and notes showing what was requested and by whom.

Flow-Down

If an owner demands work outside the contract scope, stop and get written authorization before proceeding. If they refuse to authorize in writing, document that refusal and the pressure to continue anyway.

FULL COURT OPINION