The trial court then notes that in its cited cases the indemnitor was subject to the jurisdiction of the court in the underlying action. The court then errs by attempting to logically extend these specific cases to create a general rule that would forbid subsequent suit by an indemnitee where the court in the initial suit lacked personal jurisdiction over the indemnitee. The court's reasoning and appellee's arguments in support on appeal are unpersuasive. Our precedent clearly indicates that indemnification claims can be brought in actions separate from the action creating the liability. We hold that the Tennessee federal court's lack of personal jurisdiction over the appellees does not bar their being sued in circuit court on claims of indemnification, subrogation, and breach of contract.
Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court to act.
West Memphis Sch. Lack of jurisdiction may preclude litigation of that relationship in federal court in Tennessee, but the lack of jurisdiction cannot extinguish the contract, the contractual relationship, or the rights and obligations that may arise thereunder. Thus, a lack of jurisdiction means only that a particular trial court may not act. It does not prevent any other court with jurisdiction from subsequently acting. The trial court also found that appellee Umphers was entitled to dismissal of the negligence claims against it based upon Arkansas's three-year statute of limitations.