judgment on Plaintiffs claims brought under the alleged pre-1972 policies. B. The March 31,1972-1978 Policies 1. The burden of proof Although the March 31, 1972-1978 polices contain an exclusion for damages caused by the release or escape of toxic chemicals, Plaintiff argues that the underlying lawsuit falls within the exemption to this exclusion, which states that “this exclusion does not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and accidental.” (J.A. 378.) When a pollution exclusion contains a “sudden and accidental” exemption, lower Pennsylvania courts have held that the policyholder bears the burden of demonstrating that the exemption should apply, see, e.g., Lower Paxton Township, v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 383 Pa.Super. 558, 557 A.2d 393, 399 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the Third Circuit—the circuit
holding the burden of proving that a conflict of interest rises to the level of ineffective assistance rests on the one asserting the conflict holding that burden of demonstrating coverage rests with the insured holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment 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 holding that a supreme court of pennsylvania decision strongly suggests that the burden of proving a sudden and accidental exemption should apply rests with the policyholder