such as the instant case, federal courts must apply the substantive law of the forum state. Id. at 1515 (citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) and Keller v. Miami Herald Publ’g Co., 778 F.2d 711 (11th Cir.1985)). This principle extends to the forum state’s choice of law rules. LaFarge, 118 F.3d at 1515 (citations omitted). We are thus bound to apply Florida’s choice of law rules in determining which state’s law governs this case. The district court held that Florida’s choice of law rules mandate the application of Florida law to a dispute over a contract to insure real property located within the state. The Sadikis concede, as they must, that the district court’s holding is entirely consistent with two prior opinions of this court. Id. at 1516 (<HOLDING>); Shapiro v. Associated Int'l Ins. Co., 899
holding that by selling approximately eighteen percent of its product to florida importers moving nearly all of its product through the state purchasing equipment and supplies from florida suppliers utilizing storage facilities in florida and establishing essential business relationships in this state all within its ongoing commercial relationship with florida defendant engaged  in substantial and not isolated activity within the state  holding that where florida state court had not addressed choiceoflaw issues with regard to directors liability federal court could presume that florida court would follow the restatement second of conflict of laws based on the florida courts past reliance on the treatise holding that florida courts would apply florida law to contracts insuring real property located within the state holding that when an accident occurs outside florida workers compensation benefits are payable only if the contract of employment was made in florida or if the employees employment is principally located in florida holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree