in which ease imputing the subsidiaries’ jurisdictional contacts to the parent would be improper. Id. at 1085 (citing Bellomo, 488 F.Supp. at 746). Similarly, the New York district court in Bellomo held that: [wjhere a holding company is nothing more than an investment mechanism[, i.e.,] a device for diversifying risk through corporate acquisitions^] the subsidiaries conduct business not as its agents but as its investments. The business of the parent is the business of investment, and that business is carried out entirely at the parent level. Where, on the other hand, the subsidiaries are created by the parent, for tax or corporate finance purposes, there is no basis for distinguishing between the business of the parent and the business of the subsidiaries. 488 F.Supp. at 746 (<HOLDING>); but see Arch v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.,
holding foreign insurance company was supercorporation engaged in underwriting and selling insurance policies through its subsidiaries holding that subcontractors primary and excess insurance policies must pay first and before contractors own insurance holding that notice and a hearing were required before the commissioner of insurance could require an insurance company to change its definition of at fault in order to secure approval of an increase in insurance rates holding claims for negligent procurement of insurance accrued on date the insured purchased the insurance policies holding negligent failure to notify regulatory body of lapse of insurance policy did not arise out of underwriting of insurance