v. Kitzman, 307 Ill.App.3d 92, 100-01, 240 Ill.Dec. 235, 244, 716 N.E.2d 829, 838 (1999); see also International Adm’rs, Inc. v. Life Ins. Co. of No. Am., 753 F.2d 1373, 1376 (7th Cir.1985) (“The choice of law is not made once for all issues; the trend is to decide the applicable law for each issue separately. Hence on issues about which there is no disagreement among the contact states, we would apply the law of Illinois, the forum state.”); ’Restatement (Second) Conflicts § 145, comment d (“[e]ach issue is to receive separate consideration if it is one which would be resolved differently under the local law rule of two or more of the potentially interested states”); see generally In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, Illinois on May 25, 1979, 644 F.2d 594, 611 n. 13 (7th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); Am. Law of Prods. Liab. 3d § 46:5 (2004)
holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision holding that party waived an objection to choice of law holding that under texas choice of law principles contractual choice of law provisions are generally upheld holding that under illinois law interpreting the meaning of a contract is a question of law determined by the court recognizing that illinois choice of law rules employ the issuebyissue examination of conflicts of law called depecage