With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". being a fund receiving legislative appropriation(s)-there can be no question it acts in behalf of the State. 121 Further, although State ex rel. State Insurance Fund v. Bone, 1959 OK 135, 344 P.2d 562 held-prior to the GTCA's enactment-that SIF was not within the traditional immunity afforded the sovereign because it was an agency or instrumentality of the State engaged in a business enterprise, as distinguished from a purely governmental function, Bone was decided when a distinction was made between governmental and proprietary functions of governmental entities for sovereign immunity purposes. See Vanderpool v. State, 1983 OK 82, 672 P.2d 1153 (general discussion of governmental/proprietary function issue) and Hershel v. University Hospital Foundation, 1980 OK 60, 610 P.2d 237, 242 (<HOLDING>) The previous distinction existing in sovereign

A: holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity
B: holding that local school boards were not entitled to eleventh amendment immunity even though entitled to sovereign immunity in the same degree as the state itself from tort suits
C: recognizing the courts treatment of sif in bone involved a holding that sif was a state enterprise engaged in a proprietary function not entitled to sovereign immunity
D: holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims
C.