v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 770 F.Supp. 558 (D.Nev.1991) (applying Nevada law); Millar v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 167 Ariz. 93, 804 P.2d 822 (Ariz.Ct.App.1990)). Because the question of whether the efficient proximate cause doctrine should apply in first party property claims is an issue of first impression in Maryland, I must predict how the Maryland Court of Appeals would rule were it to confront this issue. See Delawder v. American Woodmark Corp., 178 Fed.Appx. 197, 202 n. 3 (4th Cir.2006) (because neither the West Virginia legislature nor any West Virginia court had defined the term within the context of the statute, “we must predict how the West Virginia Supreme Court would define this term if it had to confront this issue”); Doe v. Doe, 973 F.2d 237, 240 (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). I conclude that the Maryland Court of Appeals
holding that a federal court sitting in diversity is bound to follow the law of the forum state holding that uncertainty for pullman abstention means that a federal court cannot predict with any confidence how a states highest court would decide an issue of state law holding that federal courts sitting in diversity shall apply state substantive law holding that a federal court sitting in diversity must predict how a state court would decide an issue 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