Oklahoma law; by their arguments, the parties have waived the application of any other state’s law to the contract. We conclude that under the law of both Oklahoma and Texas, a Parret claim does not allege a “bodily injury by accident” within the meaning of the two contracts. For that reason, we affirm the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the insurers and denying summary judgment to Cudd. a We begin by addressing which law applies to the contracts at issue. Because this case is in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, we apply the choice-of-law provision of the forum state — that is, Oklahoma — to determine what law governs the interpretation of the contracts at issue. See Mountain Fuel Supply v. Reliance Ins. Co., 933 F.2d 882, 887 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); cf. Black v. Cabot Petroleum Corp., 877 F.2d
holding that in interpreting a contract we look to the conflict of laws rules of  the forum state  to determine which states laws will be controlling holding that in the event that parties are from different states and the subject matter is national in scope and where the contract states it shall be deemed to be made under the laws of the state of new york and for all purposes construed in accordance with laws of said state new york law applies as the parties choice of law holding that the defendant must have created a substantial connection to the forum state by action purposefully directed toward the forum state or otherwise invoking the benefits and protections of the laws of the state holding in conflict of laws analysis that it was proper to apply the law of the state of washington as to the measure of damages which involved the substantive rights of the parties holding in the conflict of laws context that district courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply the substantive law of the forum state