predominant factor. See, e.g., Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 16, 21, 103 S.Ct. 927. The policies underlying Colorado River abstention are “considerations of ‘[w]ise judicial administration,’ giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.” 424 U.S. at 817, 96 S.Ct. 1236 (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200 (1952)). We respect these considerations by favoring the most complete action. See, e.g., USF & G, 21 F.3d at 263 (abstaining in favor of state action which, unlike stayed federal action, included “all parties in a declaratory judgment action involving multiple insurers and overlapping coverage.”); Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Mo. Elec. Works, 23 F.3d 1372, 1375 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Here, the likelihood of piecemeal litigation
holding in dispute involving two insurers the federal action against only one insurer should be stayed in favor of state action involving both holding that only if provisions in an insurance contract are open to more than one interpretation should it be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured holding that a federal action was properly stayed pending the outcome of parallel state proceedings where the action involved a matter of state policythe scope of eminent domain powers of municipalities under state law holding that pursuit of a parallel state court lawsuit involving claims and parties common to the federal action does not justify the district courts intervention in state court proceedings holding that the due process requirements of jurisdiction in michigan had been met for a dispute involving property in tennessee