With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the survivor’s right “must present clear and convincing evidence that the decedent at the account’s creation did not intend the joint tenant to receive the proceeds or produced no evidence that, at the time Hel-bling and Decker created the joint accounts, Helbling did not intend for Decker to have a right of survivorship, or that Helbling’s intent later changed and she notified the financial institution in writing to this effect. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact about these issues. The Siblings and the Estate have failed to overcome the statutory presumption in favor of a right to survivorship, and we therefore hold that Decker is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Freidline v. Shelby Ins. Co., 774 N.E.2d 37, 42-43 (Ind.2002) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the

A: holding that summary judgment in favor of the defendant was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to designate evidence that demonstrates that the defendant abused the qualified privilege
B: holding summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff failed to establish product identification
C: holding that in a failuretotransfer case if after a full opportunity for discovery the summary judgment record is insufficient to establish the existence of an appropriate position into which the plaintiff could have been transferred summary judgment must be granted in favor of the defendant  even if it also appears that the defendant failed to engage in good faith in the interactive process
D: holding that the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant and denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant breached its duty to act in good faith
D.