of Law (1934). See Aselco, 21 P.3d at 1018; Novak, 28 P.3d at 1039. But neither case actually explained how its analysis comported with the Restatement. Aselco stated that “[bjecause [the insurance company’s] performance of its duty to defend would have taken place in Kansas, Kansas law governs the determination of the existence of the duty.” Aselco, 21 P.3d at 1018. Novak relied on the fact that an overwhelming majority of Kansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals cases have applied the law of place of contracting. See Novak, 28 P.3d at 1039. In Layne Chñstensen Co., however, a case decided a few months later by the same panel that decided Aselco, the court provided further guidance on what question to ask in applying the Restatement. See Layne Christensen Co., 38 P.3d at 766-67 (<HOLDING>). In Layne Christensen Co., the court
holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law holding that the standard of review for the denial of a motion for reconsideration is governed by the law of the regional circuit holding that ejxcept in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of congress the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state holding that the meaning of the coverage limit is governed by the law of place of contracting because it goes to the substance of obligation holding that the standard of review for the denial of rule 11 sanctions is governed by the law of the regional circuit