The rental contract between K.S. and E.C contains an indemnity provision whereby E.C. agrees to indemnify K.S., for losses resulting from negligence on the part of E.C. or any of its employees, arising out of, or occurring in connection with, the furnishing of any goods or services. The rental contract, signed in Maryland, also contains a choice of law provision, which identifies Pennsylvania law as the law that governs performance. Indemnification agreements that indemnify the indemnitee against its own sole negligence are against public policy in Maryland - They are enforceable in Pennsylvania and Delaware. Maryland uses lex loci delicti as its tort choice of law rule. All the relevant states use lex loci contractus as their choice of law rule for contract disputes.
Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.
B.S. files a cross claim against K.S. and E.C. for common-law contribution, alleging their negligence in working under the live line. K.S. cross claims against E.C. for indemnification. E.C. claims the indemnification clause is void under Maryland law, which, it says, applies to the case, or at least, to the indemnification part of the case. Suppose the case were transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Since this case is in federal court, why does the federal court need to worry about state choice of law rules.