where there is sufficient evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the non-moving party. Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Accordingly, we will affirm the district court if en the parent corporation owns all of the outstanding stock of the subsidiary. Mut. Holding Co. v. Limbach, 71 Ohio St.3d 59, 641 N.E.2d 1080, 1081 (1994). Likewise, this distinction continues if the parent and the subsidiary act through common employees, have integrated operations, and carry on a close working relationship. Inlow v. Davis, No. CA2002-08-071, 2003 WL 21373154, *4 (Ohio App. June 16, 2003) (unpublished). This result is consistent with other state court decisions addressing the same issue on similar facts. See e.g. Unijax, Inc. v. Factory Ins. Ass’n, 328 So.2d 448, 452 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976) (<HOLDING>); Gordon Chem. Co., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur.
holding that an unestablished business may recover lost prospective profits 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 holding an insured corporation could not recover for a fire loss caused by its controlling shareholders arson 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 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