job and were now useless.


4
On April 23, 1985 Sonoco sued Western Transport, Nationwide, Thunderbird, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company to recover $30,115.36, the replacement cost and penalties for late shipment.  Eventually all defendants were dismissed except Thunderbird.  The trial court granted Sonoco summary judgment against Thunderbird on October 26, 1986, even though Thunderbird had shut down business in October 1985.


5
During the course of litigation, however, on approximately April 30, 1986, attorneys stating that they represented Thunderbird's insurer contacted Sonoco's attorneys but did not identify the insurer.  Thereafter, Sonoco sent copies of its motion for summary judgment and brief to the insurer's attorneys.  Eventually the attorneys identified defendant American as the insurer by sending Sonoco a copy of American's insurance policy that coveredthe defunct Thunderbird.


6
On January 16, 1987 Sonoco sued American claiming that, as Thunderbird's insurer, American was responsible for the expenses incurred with regard to the lost panels.  American moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it had not received proper notice of the loss and that the policy did not cover the loss because the panels were eventually recovered.  Sonoco, in response, filed a motion for summary judgment.  The district judge granted Sonoco summary judgment on February 4, 1988 in the amount of $30,115.36.  American appeals.

II. ANALYSIS
A. The Conflicts of Law Issue

7
Before we reach the merits of American's appeal, we first must determine which state's laws to apply in this diversity suit.  Sonoco argues that the insurance contract entered into by