With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that state malpractice claims against insurer for negligently failing to obtain replacement insurance plan was not preempted
B: holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against liability insurer for bad faith in negotiating settlement
C: holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against insurer for negligently failing to claim contribution
D: holding contribution claim against attorney not contrary to illinois public policy
C.