in order to fall within the statutory terms. It goes far beyond our role as statutory interpreters, however, when we define as a matter of federal law which risks the policy covers. 3 . See, e.g., United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 117 S.Ct. 921, 927, 137 L.Ed.2d 107 (1997) (citing Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322, 112 S.Ct. 1344, 117 L.Ed.2d 581 (1992) (citing Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 739-40, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989))). 4 . See also, e.g., La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2046 (West 1987) (stating that "when the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties' intent”); Heinhuis v. Venture Assoc., 959 F.2d 551, 553 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). 5 . It may be that Your Credit filed, and
holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy holding that plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive holding that if the statutory terms are unambiguous a courts review ends and the statute is construed according to the plain meaning of its words holding that a court applying louisiana law should interpret a policy according to its plain meaning and not distort its meaning to introduce an ambiguity holding that a statute should where possible be construed according to its plain meaning and as a whole giving meaning to all its parts