proceedings where there is no controlling constitutional provision or act of Congress, a federal court must apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits, including the state’s choice-of-law rules. See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., Inc., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941) (observing that forum state's choice-of-law rules are substantive). Because this action was removed to the Southern District of West Virginia, we must apply West Virginia's choice-of-law rules. 10 . In support of her position that the Coverage Claim is assignable, Brewer also relies on certain other Kentucky authorities. See Steedly v. London & Lancashire Ins. Co., Ltd., 416 F.2d 259, 262 (6th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>); Terrell v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 427 S.W.2d 825
holding that state malpractice claims against insurer for negligently failing to obtain replacement insurance plan was not preempted holding contribution claim against attorney not contrary to illinois public policy holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against insurer for negligently failing to claim contribution holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against liability insurer for bad faith in negotiating settlement holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against insurer for judgment in excess of policy limits