With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by this court. Id. Countrymark, Inc., did not file an answer to Turner’s complaint, did not assert an affirmative defense that it was not the real party in interest, and did not file a motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6). In the remainder of the pleadings, Coun-trymark variously described itself as both Countrymark, Inc., and Countrymark, LLP. Additionally, although evidence was presented at the trial that Countrymark, LLP, owned the property in question, the insurance policy provided in discovery identified Countrymark, Inc., as the policyholder. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Countrymark invited any error, and we decline to find that the trial court erred by denying Countrymark, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the evidence. See, e.g., Smith, 744 N.E.2d at 465 (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the

A: holding that school districts do not share in the commonwealth of pennsylvanias eleventh amendment sovereign immunity because they are not alter egos of the commonwealth
B: holding that corporate officer and majority shareholder could be held liable for acting in a manner that served his interests at the expense of the other shareholders because his interests and the corporations were not necessarily aligned
C: holding that equity required that colonial mat be held liable for the debt at issue in order to protect an innocent third party from unfairness because colonial mat and colonial industrial dba colonial carpets were treated as if they were adjunct corporations or mere alter egos or instrumentalities of each other that shared a common identity
D: holding that school boards in alabama counties were not arms or alter egos of the state for purposes of eleventh amendment immunity
C.