under the rules of statutory construction, courts should consider other statutes regarding insurance practices, such as the UIPA, to establish standards for good faith. See Romano, 646 A.2d at 1232-33. Since the landmark test for bad faith was announced in Terletsky, however the federal courts sitting in diversity have abstained from applying the rule of construction announced in Romano, and have adhered to the Terletsky standard. See UPMC Health Sys., 391 F.3d at 505-06 (applying the Terletsky test and ignoring violations of the UIPA as evidence of bad faith); Dinner v. United Seros. Auto. Ass’n Cas. Ins. Co., 29 Fed.Appx. 823, 827-28 (3d Cir.2002) (rejecting Romano and its progeny) (non-precedential); Klinger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 115 F.3d 230, 233-34 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Loos, 476
holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that until the supreme court of pennsylvania rules on the issue the third circuit will apply the terletsky standard for bad faith holding that in a workers compensation case a third party bad faith cause of action does not accrue until judgment is entered on the underlying case holding that the supreme court will not issue advisory opinion on issue not before the court holding that we are required to predict the position which the pennsylvania supreme court would take in resolving this dispute  and in the absence of a clear statement by the pennsylvania supreme court to the contrary or other persuasive evidence of a change in pennsylvania law we are bound by the holdings of previous panels of this court