the broad policy goals of M.G.L. ch. 188. They urge this Court to anticipate a similar holding from the SJC and rule contrary to the holding in Atlantic Savings. III. DISCUSSION At the outset, the Court is mindful of the In re Miller court’s admonition that a bankruptcy court ruling on an issue of state law must rule as it believes the highest court of the state would rule. When the highest court has not addressed the issue, the Bankruptcy Court should not regard lower court rulings on the issue as dis-positive. Rather, it should attempt to predict what the highest court would do and to that end should accord proper regard to decisions of other courts of the state. 113 B.R. 98, 101 (Bankr.D.Mass.1990); see also Caron v. Farmington Nat’l Bank (In re Caron), 82 F.3d 7, 9 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In order to answer the question now
holding that a federal court must decide an issue regarding the interpretation of a state law according to its anticipation of how the highest state court would hold holding that a federal court in absence of a state supreme court pronouncement on a subject of state substantive law must determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide holding that when there is no ruling by the states highest court it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide holding that a federal court sitting in diversity must predict how a state court would decide an issue holding that when highest court of state has not decided particular issue of substantive law federal court faced with this issue in diversity must make an erie guess as to how highest court would rule