With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". under a business interruption policy after destruction of one subsidiary’s manufacturing facility); see also 3 Couch on Insurance § 40:15 (3rd ed. 2003) (“Where a parent corporation and it subsidiaries are covered by the same policy, rights of subsidiaries are wholly separate and [the] parent has no right to recover for loss suffered by subsidiary.”); compare Wood Goods Galore, Inc. v. Reinsurance Ass’n of Minn., 478 N.W.2d 205, 210 (Minn.Ct.App.1991) (allowing insured to recover under business interruption policy for lost retail sales at one location after an accident at its remote manufacturing facility since both facilities were owned by a single corporate entity); contra Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Anderson-Prichard Oil Corp., 141 F.2d 443, 446 (10th Cir.1944) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the district court that, under

A: recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary
B: holding that a close relationship between a parent corporation and a subsidiary may justify finding that the parent engages in business in the jurisdiction through the local activities of its subsidiary
C: holding that parent corporation could recover under business interruption policy for lost profits of one subsidiary resulting from accident at a separate subsidiary since the two were integrated operations
D: holding that parent corporation could not recover for its lost profits incurred after subsidiary suffered a fire even though both were listed as named insured on the business interruption insurance policy
C.