in the regulatory exclusion provision of the policy is clear and unambiguous. Claims arising from the [directors and officers] action are not excluded from coverage under the plain meaning of the regulatory exclusion. Id. at 1185-1186. This Court disagrees with the findings of the court in the American Casualty case. Id. This Court believes that the construction suggested by the FDIC and the court in the American Casualty case is technical and unreasonable. In the case of Gary v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 753 F.Supp. 1547, 1550-1551 (W.D.Okl.1990), in interpreti pany, No. 87-54-D, slip op. (S.D. Iowa, Sept. 29, 1988). Contra, American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 677 F.Supp. 600, 603-604 (N.D.Iowa [1987]) (<HOLDING>). {See Exhibit attached to document # 32,
holding exclusion was not ambiguous holding location of named driver exclusion in endorsement did not make it ambiguous exclusion applied to all coverage afforded by the policy including the um coverage holding it is settled that in construing an endorsement to an insurance policy the endorsement and the policy must be read together and the words of the policy remain in full force and effect except as altered by the words of the endorsement holding that the identical exclusion endorsement is ambiguous susceptible to the interpretation urged by both the fdic and acco therein also urged herein holding second sentence of a nearly identical exclusion did not limit the scope of the exclusion