With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the judgment is within the scope of the "errors of calculation" allowed for under La. C.C.P. art. 1951 is questionable. 11 . On April 6, 2005, Continental paid Tate & Lyle $1,419,168.95 for reimbursement of defense costs that it had incurred in this suit. It did so under a full reservation of rights. 12 . As noted, we affirmed that decision in Ar-ceneaux I, and it became a final judgment in January 2006. 13 . For ease of reference, we use the phrase “policy period" to refer to the multiple policy periods covered by Continental’s policies at issue in this case. 14 . The policy at issue in Bristers was a "claims made” policy, which covered only those claims asserted with the policy period. 15 . See Sims v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 04-584, p. 20 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/05), 897 So.2d 834, 845 (<HOLDING>)(citing Gambino v. Lamulle, 97-2798, p. 5

A: holding that new mexicos uninsured motorist statute nmsa 1978 section 665301 1983 requires an insurer to offer um7 uim coverage in an amount equal to the liability limits of the policy and that the choice of the insured to purchase any lower amount functions as a rejection of that maximum amount of coverage statutorily possible
B: holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage
C: holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage
D: holding that a waiver argument was not available because the dispute is over the amount of coverage and not a policy defense that could be waived
C.