costs in addition to its policy limit. ACE challenges the decision. The parties were unable to locate ACE’s policies and stipulated that certain memos between brokers provided evidence as to indemnity. The court concluded that this evidence indicated that ACE followed form to the relevant underlying policies, making ACE responsible for defense costs in addition to the policy limits. ACE explains that the district court must have relied on language in the memos referring to coverage “per underlying policy.” This language, ACE contends, does not establish the extent of its defense-cost obligations because there was no specific provision describing the extent to which ACE agreed to reimburse defense costs. See Schneider Natl. Transp. v. Ford Motor Co., 280 F.3d 532, 538 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Finally, ACE contends that the district court
holding that policy did not provide coverage where negligent repair of lift in elevator occurred during policy period while resulting injury occurred after policy was canceled holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy holding that cases construing policy coverage are authoritative only if they involve the same language or the same version of the standard form embodied in the policy under consideration holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage holding that absent follow form language provision that excess policy would continue as underlying policy did not impose coverage as provided in underlying policy