With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". accruing up through August 24, 1999 made use of no secret information or information generated in post-1999 litigation. The same calculations of the extent of MPC's liability to plaintiffs could have been made by MPC at any time following the verdict of the Gunn jury. 6 . Arguing by analogy, MPC relies on Willet v. Penn. Med. Catastrophe Loss Fund, 549 Pa. 613, 702 A.2d 850 (1997), as authority for bringing a contribution or indemnity action against the CAT. MPC acknowledges that Wiliet is not precisely on-point and "respectfully requests that this [C]ourt extend the holding in Wiliet.” MPC Br. at 27. We decline the invitation. Such ambitious developments in Pennsylvania insurance law must come from Pennsylvania’s courts. See Vargus v. Pitman Mfg. Co., 675 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir. 1982) (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted); cf. Burris Chemical, Inc.

A: holding that our use of the subjunctive in mentioning an argument in passing suggests that we knew that we were not addressing and that we could not address that argument
B: holding that the nonprevailing party in district court proceedings here is asking that we anticipate the birth of a state law doctrine in the womb of time but whose birth is distant we have been asked to deliver prematurely a new doctrine of pennsylvania tort law and as a federal court we are unwilling to do so
C: holding that we will overturn the factual findings of the district court only where we have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed
D: holding that when we do not know why the district court refused to depart  we assume that the district court knew and applied the law correctly rather than that it erroneously thought itself without discretion internal quotations and alterations omitted
B.