former directors and officers for statutory and regulatory violations, that is, for sanctions such as civil penalties. The FDIC argues that this alternative construction is consistent with its dual capacity as both a regulator and a receiver and should not bar claims brought by it as a receiver against the bank’s, former directors and officers. As recognized by the district court, under Minnesota law, ambiguity in an insurance policy is a question of law to be decided by the court. See, e.g., Columbia Heights Motors, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 275 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Minn.1979). “In interpreting a policy exclusion, any ambiguity in the language of the policy must be construed in favor of the insured. The court, however, has no right to read an ambiguity into the plain langu ll.1991) (<HOLDING>); American Casualty Co. v. Baker, 758 F.Supp.
holding similar regulatory exclusion is not ambiguous and rejecting secondary suit construction holding that for purposes of statutory construction expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other holding phrase based upon or attributable to is not ambiguous and rejecting secondary suit construction holding that to negate coverage under an exclusion insurer must show that its construction is the only construction that could fairly be placed thereon holding exclusion was not ambiguous