With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Co. v. Bradley’s Electric, Inc., No. 13-95-524-CV, 1998 WL 518186(Tex.App.—Corpus Christi, May 14, 1998). In that case, the district court ruled in favor of the insured in finding a duty to defend on claims of inducement and patent infringement made in the underlying litigation. This ruling was subsequently appealed. However, in the opinion on motion for rehearing, the court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s ruling, discussing only venue considerations. Id. at *3-4. Therefore, Bradley’s Electric is equally unavailing in deciding this issue. Thus, having found no Texas case law which answers the issue, the Court is left to resolve the question as the Texas Supreme Court would, under Texas law. See Rogers v. Corrosion Prods., Inc., 42 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). D. In order for IMC to prove its ease for

A: holding that when applying state law this court follows the decision of the highest state court or in the absence of such a decision and any indication that the highest court would rule differently the decisions of the states intermediate courts
B: 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
C: 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
D: 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
D.