With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". where a party has chosen one remedy and later pursues another remedy which is repugnant to or inconsistent with the remedy selected.” (emphasis added)), reh’g denied, trans. denied; see also Farmers State Bank, 582 N.E.2d at 454 (stating that the doctrine of election of remedies “does not apply unless there are two or more coexistent remedies available to the litigant at the time of the election, from which a choice may be made, and one of which is chosen by the litigant.” (quoting Indiana Law Encyclopedia, Election of Remedies § 1, p. 344 (1958))). In essence, the doctrine operates as a form of estoppel or waiver once such an election is made. In fact, there are many cases that focus specifically on whether an election was in fact made by a litigant. See e.g. Parke, 571 N.E.2d at 1320 (<HOLDING>). Here, we have the absence of an election

A: holding that a cause of action based on eaja will be deemed to have survived the death of the aggrieved party and  the personal representative of the deceased partys estate or any other appropriate person may be substituted as the prevailing party to whom payment of an eaja award may be made
B: holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior action
C: holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum
D: holding that a partys intent to elect is controlling in determining if an election has been made and a party cannot be deemed to elect a remedy if the party was not aware of the additional cause of action
D.