Tennessee Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2: Subsidiary as Alter Ego of Parent Corporation — Detailed Description Keywords: Tennessee, jury instruction, subsidiary, alter ego, parent corporation, types In Tennessee, the legal concept of a subsidiary corporation being considered the alter ego of its parent corporation carries significant implications. Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 is designed to help jurors understand situations where a subsidiary entity can be treated as a mere extension or alter ego of its parent company in legal matters. A subsidiary corporation, in its essence, refers to a company controlled by another business entity, known as the parent corporation. While subsidiaries are commonly established for various reasons, such as tax advantages or specific business operations, they must maintain their independent legal existence and not serve as a disguise for the parent company's actions or liabilities. Tennessee Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 focuses on scenarios where a plaintiff argues that a subsidiary should be treated as the alter ego of its parent corporation. This instruction aids the jury in carefully evaluating the evidence and determining if piercing the corporate veil — a legal process disregarding the subsidiary's liability protection and holding the parent company liable — is appropriate in the given case. Types of Tennessee Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 Subsidiary as Alter Ego of Parent Corporation: 1. Substantial Identity: In this case, the plaintiff demonstrates substantial identity between the parent and subsidiary corporations, indicating that their separation is merely superficial. Factors such as commingling of funds, inadequate capitalization, identical officers or directors, and similar office locations can support this argument. 2. Fraud or Wrongful Act: Here, the plaintiff alleges that the parent corporation purposely established the subsidiary as a fraudulent or wrongful act to evade its obligations or responsibilities. This may involve shifting debts, concealing assets, or purposely creating an under capitalized subsidiary to shield the parent company from liability. 3. Unity of Interest and Ownership: This argument emphasizes that the parent and subsidiary corporations operate as a single economic entity, sharing common financial interests, control, and ownership. Evidence such as complete domination and control by the parent corporation, identical board members or management, intermingled finances, or the parent corporation disregarding corporate formalities can support this claim. It is essential for jurors to examine all the relevant evidence presented during the trial and determine whether any of these types apply to the specific case in question. Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 guides the jury in analyzing the nature of the relationship between the parent and subsidiary corporations, and whether it justifies piercing the corporate veil for the purpose of enforcing liability against the parent company. In conclusion, Tennessee Jury Instruction — 1.9.5.2 plays a crucial role in helping jurors understand the complex legal principles associated with treating a subsidiary as the alter ego of its parent corporation. By assessing the substantial identity, any fraudulent or wrongful acts, and the unity of interest and ownership, the jury can determine if disregarding the subsidiary's legal entity is warranted in ensuring justice and equity in the given case.