applying general rules of contract construction to derive their meaning.”); see also In re Guardianship of Hampton, 359 N.W.2d 740, 743 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (explaining that fidelity bonds issued by bonding companies “are now regarded as insurance policies, in substance, and are governed for the most part by insurance law rather than suretyship law”), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 374 N.W.2d 264 (Minn.1985). No Minnesota case precludes application of the concurrent-causation doctrine to financial institution bonds. We find that Minnesota courts would adhere to the general rule of treating financial institution bonds as insurance polices and interpreting those bonds in accordance with the principles of insurance law. See Friedberg v. Chubb & Son, Inc., 691 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, we reject Banclnsure’s argument
holding that while not bound to follow the federal rule the minnesota supreme court relies on the principles of title vii when construing the mhra holding that a federal court sitting in diversity must predict how a state court would decide an issue holding that where there are no cases on point we must predict how the supreme court of minnesota would rule 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 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