in the place of those defendants for the purposes of the third-party action. 3 . This statutory provision, as well as Miss.Code Ann. § 83-3-107, discussed infra, were repealed, revised and recodified in 1987. See Miss.Code Ann. § 83-2-1, et seq. Since these prior provisions were effective at the time the insurance policy at bar was issued, they control this court’s determination rather than the statutes currently in force. 4 . It is also interesting to note that Judge Wingate relied in part upon the decision of International Ins. Co. v. Love, No. Civ-86-64-A (W.D.Okla. Feb. 23, 1987). McMullan, 1990 WL 483731 at *16. The value of that decision was effectively voided by a later Tenth Circuit decision. F.D.I.C. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 975 F.2d 677, 682, 683 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Gary v. American Cas. Co. of
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 failure to gain approval of insurance board for endorsement did not void regulatory exclusion holding negligent failure to notify regulatory body of lapse of insurance policy did not arise out of underwriting of insurance holding an endorsement to an existing insurance policy which added a new vehicle did not create a new contract of insurance but was merged with and became a part of the original policy 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