With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Co. v. Zimmer, 257 S.W.3d 504, 509 (TexApp.-Tyler 2008, pet. denied) (citing Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 2706, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561, 580 (Tex.2002)). If a statement “cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual,” it is not actionable. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20, 110 S.Ct. at 2706. B. Immunity In his motion for rehearing, Jesus adopts the argument from the dissent that he is immune from liability based on section 261.106 of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 261.106 (Vernon 2008). As pointed out by the dissent, section 261.106 provides: (a) A person acting in good faith who reports or assists in the investigation of a report of all ., 283 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex.2009) (<HOLDING>). Even assuming without deciding that Miranda

A: holding bjecause immunity from liability constitutes an affirmative defense not a jurisdictional bar only immunity from suit is properly before us today
B: holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit
C: recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit
D: holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional
D.