of an insurance contract in order to construe it against the insurer.” Henning Nelson Construction Co. v. Fireman’s Fund American Life Insurance Co., 383 N.W.2d 645, 652 (Minn.1986) (citations omitted). We agree with the district court that the regulatory exclusion is not ambiguous. 765 F.Supp. at 549. The plain language of the regulatory exclusion bars coverage for any claim against the directors and officers of the bank based on any action or proceeding brought by or on behalf of the FDIC. When read as a whole, the regulatory exclusion covers any claim, direct or secondary, brought against the directors and officers of the bank by the FDIC in any capacity. See American Casualty Co. v. FDIC, 944 F.2d 455, 460 (8th Cir.1991); cf. FSLIC v. Shelton, 789 F.Supp. 1355, 1357 (M.D.La.1992) (<HOLDING>); FDIC v. Zaborac, 773 F.Supp. 137, 141-42
holding exclusion was not ambiguous holding that rules of contract construction are to be applied where the language used is ambiguous holding that the phrase or ganic diseases of the nervous system contained in 38 usc  11013 was ambiguous because the statute did not define the phrase holding phrase based upon or attributable to is not ambiguous and rejecting secondary suit construction holding similar regulatory exclusion is not ambiguous and rejecting secondary suit construction