stem from personal injuries allegedly caused by a product (a drug), they are in fact product liability claims. Construed as such, Plaintiffs’ “misrepresentation” claims would fail for the same reason their “product liability” claims did: Plaintiffs did not allege that they were injured by the Brand Manufacturers’ product. Second, the district court found that even if the misrepresentation claims could be seen as distinct and separate from product liability claims, they would fail because Plaintiffs could not establish that the Brand Manufacturers owed them a legal duty. We must analyze whether Plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claims would stand under the laws of each implicated state, as required per Erie. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) (<HOLDING>). When sitting in diversity, federal courts are
holding that a federal district court sitting in diversity must apply its forum states choice of law rules holding that federal courts sitting in diversity shall apply state substantive law holding that when applying state law a federal court is bound to follow the highest court in the state holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding that a federal court sitting in diversity is bound to follow the law of the forum state