use was excluded by the impaired property exclusion. From the district court’s judgment, AOL filed this appeal, contending (1) that the damages claimed in the underlying complaints amounted to “physical damage to tangible property,” and (2) that the complaints alleged “loss of use of tangible property” that was not excluded from coverage by the impaired property exclusion. St. Paul filed a cross-appeal, challenging the district court’s conclusion that the underlying complaints alleged “loss of use” of tangible property. II Because this diversity action was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, we apply Virginia choice-of-law rules to determine which state’s substantive rules apply. See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496-97, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the insurance contract between
holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding that a federal court with diversity jurisdiction must apply the choiceoflaw rules of the state in which the federal court sits holding that state substantive rules of decision apply in federal diversity cases holding that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law holding that in diversity eases the law of the state in which a federal court sits must be followed with respect to the statute of limitations citing guaranty trust