author: GUIDRY, Justice.

text:
    VACUUM TRUCK CARRIERS OF LOUISIANA, INC. and Its Member Carriers v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
    No. 2008-CA-2340.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 5, 2009.
    Rehearing Denied June 19, 2009.

      Phelps, Dunbar, Kyle Christian Marion-neaux, John Owen Shirley, Sr., Harry Alston Johnson, Baton Rouge, III, Amanda Hurt Smith, Eve Kahao Gonzalez, for appellant.
    The Boles Law Firm, Janet S. Boles, Baton Rouge, for appellee.
   GUIDRY, Justice.

11 This appeal raises the issue of whether the Louisiana Public Service Commission (hereinafter, “Commission”) acted arbitrarily or capriciously when it granted Southern Specialties Transportation, L.L.C. (hereinafter, “Southern”) a limited and restricted common carrier certificate authorizing the transportation of drilling mud for disposal originating in only six named parishes, with additional restrictions specifically prohibiting transportation by dump truck of non-hazardous solid waste originating in three other named parishes. On appeal to the 19th Judicial District Court pursuant to La.Rev.Stat. 45:1192, the district court rescinded the Commission’s Order No. T-29541. Thereafter, the Commission and Southern appealed directly to this court pursuant to La. Const, art. IV, § 21 (1974). After reviewing the record of the evidence in this case and the applicable law, we conclude the Commission’s determination that Southern met its burden of showing public necessity and convenience in its application for a limited and restricted common carrier certificate was not arbitrary and capricious and is reasonably supported by the evidence. Because we find the district court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the Commission, we reverse the district court’s ruling and reinstate the Commission’s Order No. T-29541.

| .BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 8, 2006, Southern filed an application for a common carrier certificate authorizing transportation of drilling mud for disposal, statewide. The application was published in the Commission’s Official Bulletin on May 10, 2006. During the publication period, the Commission received notices of opposition on behalf of Vacuum Truck Carriers of Louisiana, Inc. (hereinafter, “Vacuum Truck Carriers”), Vanguard Vacuum Trucks, Inc. (hereinafter, “Vanguard”), and Stranco, Inc. (hereinafter, “Stranco”). The Commission also received a formal protest on behalf of Scion-eaux, Inc. (hereinafter, “Scioneaux”). Protestants are holders of common carrier certificates interested in protecting their operating rights.

A hearing before the Commission was continued several times, with counsel for the applicant Southern stating in one motion that the applicant and the protestants were negotiating to resolve their differences. In the meantime, Vanguard in July 2006 withdrew its opposition to Southern’s application. In August 2006, Southern filed a restrictive amendment to its application, which action resulted in the withdrawal of Scioneaux’s protest. Accepted by the Commission, the restrictive amendment provides as follows:

Restricted against the transportation by dump trucks of regulated non-hazardous solid waste originating in the parishes of St. John the Baptist, St. Charles and St. James. This restriction is applicable only to the transportation of non-hazardous solid waste in dump trucks.

In September 2006, Stranco also withdrew its opposition to Southern’s application.

A hearing was conducted on October 3, 2006, before an administrative law judge (hereinafter, “ALJ”). After Southern filed an exception to the ALJ’s draft recommendation, the ALJ issued a final recommendation to the Commission on February 23, 2007, in the form of a draft order. The proposed order found that, |saIthough there are times when the shippers’ needs are not being met on demand, the applicant did not prove as required by La.Rev. Stat. 45:164 that public convenience and necessity required the issuance of a certificate. The Commission in its business and executive session of May 24, 2007, voted, with the exception of one member, to reject the ALJ’s final recommendation and to grant Southern a limited and restricted common carrier certificate authorizing the transportation of drilling mud for disposal, which originates in the parishes of Acadia, Evangeline, St. Landry, Jefferson Davis, Vermillion, and Cameron, with the following restrictions or limitation:

Restricted against the transportation by dump trucks of regulated non-hazardous solid waste originating in the parishes of St. John the Baptist, St. Charles and St. James. This restriction is applicable only to the transportation of non-hazardous solid waste in dump trucks.

On October 3, 2007, the Commission initially issued its Order No. T-29541 reflecting that decision, but it subsequently reissued the order on November 26, 2007, “merely to correct the name of the applicant.” LPSC Order T29541, November 26, 2007, p. 1, n. 1. Pursuant to La.Rev. Stat. 45:1192, the protestant appealed the Commission’s Order No, T-29541 to the 19th Judicial District Court, which issued an opinion rescinding the Commission’s order. The Commission and Southern now appeal that ruling to this court under La. Const, art. IV, § 21 (1974).

LAW and STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Louisiana law, a motor carrier may not operate as a common carrier without first obtaining from the Commission a certificate of public convenience and necessity, which shall be issued only after a written application is made, a public hearing conducted, due notice given to the applicant and all competing common carriers, and a finding by the Commission that public convenience and necessity require the issuance of a certificate. La.Rev.Stat. 45:164. Furthermore, no new or hadditional certificate will be granted over a route where the Commission has previously issued a certificate, unless it is clearly shown that the public convenience and necessity would be materially promoted thereby. Id.

Given the focus on public convenience and necessity, that concept has been the subject of much litigation and discussion. See, e.g., Matlack, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 622 So.2d 640 (La. 1993). Consequently, it is well-settled that public convenience and necessity is a dynamic and flexible concept, which is not susceptible to a rigid or precise definition and, therefore, must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Louisiana Household Goods Carriers v. La. Public Service Comm’n, 00-2803, p. 4 (La.3/12/01), 781 So.2d 545, 547; Matlack, Inc., 622 So.2d at 650; Florane v. Lousiana Public Service Comm’n, 433 So.2d 120, 123 (La.1983). Among the factors that may be considered in determining public convenience and necessity are whether the new operation or service will serve a useful public purpose responsive to public demand or need, whether this purpose can and will be served as well by existing carriers, whether it can be served by the applicant’s operation without endangering or impairing operations of existing carriers contrary to public interest, and whether it can be served by the applicant without undue jeopardy to highway users or to the structure and safety of the roads. Miller Transporters, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 518 So.2d 1018, 1019-20 (La.1988)(collecting cases and authorities); see also Matlack, Inc., 622 So.2d at 655-56 (citing L & B Transp. Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 602 So.2d 712, 714 (La.1992); Gulf Coast Pre-Mix Trucking v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 336 So.2d 849, 854 (La.1976)).

Evaluating whether an applicant meets the requisite burden of proving public convenience and necessity is within the Commission’s sound judgment and | discretion. Mississippi Chem. Exp., Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 94-0440, p. 7 (La.5/23/94), 637 So.2d 93, 98; Matlack, Inc., 622 So.2d at 650. The Commission’s determination is accorded great weight because it is an exercise of the Commission’s discretionary authority. Mississippi. Chem. Exp., Inc., 94-0440 at p. 7, 637 So.2d 93, 98; Florane, 433 So.2d at 123; Dreher Contracting & Equip. Rental, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 396 So.2d 1265, 1267 (La.1981)). Indeed, “[t]he general rule is that a regulatory body may use its own judgment in evaluating evidence as to a matter within its own expertise.... ” Louisiana Household Goods Carriers, 00-2803, p. 4, 781 So.2d at 548; Baton Rouge Water Works Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 342 So.2d 609, 611 (La.1977). The determinations made by the Commission are presumed valid; therefore, the party who attacks the Commission’s determination has the burden of proving its invalidity. Louisiana Household Goods Carriers, 00-2803, p. 4, 781 So.2d at 548; Baton Rouge Water Works Co., 342 So.2d at 611; Louisiana Oilfield Carriers Ass’n v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 281 So.2d 698, 700 (La.1973).

A reviewing court may not overturn the Commission’s determination of public convenience and necessity unless the determination is based on an error of law, or unless it is arbitrary or capricious. Louisiana Household Goods Carriers, 00-2803, p. 4, 781 So.2d at 548; Baton Rouge Water Works Co., 342 So.2d at 611; Miller Transporters, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 518 So.2d 1018, 1020 (La. 1988). The Commission’s determination “is arbitrary and capricious only when the evidence in the record does not and could not reasonably support it.” Mississippi Chem. Exp., 94-0440 at p. 7-8, 687 So.2d at 98. When reviewing the Commission’s determinations, the reviewing court should not re-weigh the evidence or re-judge the credibility of the witnesses or substitute its findings for those of the Commission. | rLouisiana Household Goods Carriers, 00-2803, pp. 4-5, 781 So.2d at 548; Louisiana Household Goods Carrier v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 99-3184, pp. 3-4, 762 So.2d 1081, 1085; Mississippi Chem. Exp., 94-0440 at p. 7-8, 637 So.2d at 98. Instead, reasonable inferences of fact and of credibility made by the Commission should not be overturned on review, even though the reviewing court may reasonably disagree. Id. Accordingly, the court’s role in judicially reviewing the Commission’s determination of public convenience and necessity is “ ‘quite narrow: if the Commission’s determination is reasonably supported by evidence in the record, [the court] must affirm.’ ” Louisiana Household Goods Carriers, 99-3184, p. 4, 762 So.2d at 1085-86 (quoting Mississippi Chem. Exp., 94-0440 at p. 8, 637 So.2d at 99); see also Scotty’s Vacuum Serv., Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 450 So.2d 1303, 1304 (La.1984); B&M Trucking, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 353 So.2d 1323, 1328 (La.1977).

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In this case, we must determine whether the Commission, acting reasonably on the evidence in the record before it, could have determined that issuing Southern a limited and restricted common carrier certificate, which gave it limited authority to transport only drilling mud for disposal originating in six named parishes, with additional restrictive amendments, would materially promote the public convenience and necessity. If the Commission’s issuance of the limited and restricted common carrier certificate action is reasonably supported by the evidence, and is not arbitrary and capricious, then we must reverse the district court’s ruling rescinding the Commission’s order.

To determine whether the Commission’s order is reasonably supported by the record evidence, a comprehensive review of the testimony at the hearing before the |7administrative law judge is necessary. Louisiana Household Goods Carriers, 99-3184, p. 4, 762 So.2d at 1086 (citing Ken-Go Services, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 483 So.2d 141, 143 (La. 1986)).

Southern’s Case

At the 2006 hearing, Jonathan Kent Col-ligan testified that he is the owner of Southern, which had then been in existence for six months and operating for two months hauling drilling fluids, new mud from plant to rig to storage, both freshwater and saltwater, for which the applicant already had authority from the Commission. The company, located along with its terminal in Church Point, Louisiana, has two trucks, both of which are insured and one of which Colligan operates himself. Colligan is personally HAZMAT certified; there are two employees. The applicant has transported saltwater for a number of customers. Colligan testified that he has received numerous requests to do work outside of the saltwater transporting and has had to turn down jobs as a result of not having the authority the company is presently seeking. Colligan testified that, should the requested authority be granted, the company is prepared to begin operation under the new authority immediately.

On cross-examination by counsel for the protestants, Colligan testified that, although he had not performed any research or surveys, he sees a need for the requested authority based on the business the company has turned down. Colligan further testified that he has never hauled as a lease operator or other operator under another certified carrier’s authority. He testified the company’s two trucks both hold standard vacuum equipment and the company, which is audited through the state Department of Transportation, has in place safety programs and procedures.

The applicant’s second witness was Stephen Edward Daigle, who had then been employed over the previous seven years as a dispatcher and logistics coordinator [sfor Francis Drilling Fluids (hereinafter, “FDF”) in Crowley, Louisiana. He testified that he handles all customer requests for any type of oilfield services dealing with vacuum truck transportation, transportation of liquid mud and drilling fluids, and hauling materials. He explained that FDF has a Master Service Agreement (hereinafter, “MSA”) with at least eighteen trucking companies, primarily to ensure adequate insurance coverage. FDF utilizes companies on this list to fulfill their customers’ liquid transportation requests. He stated that FDF pays the trucking company’s bill and then bills out the balance to the customers. Daigle testified that, when a call is received by FDF requesting a vacuum truck to transport some form of liquid, he will usually go up and down the list at least twice, and sometimes more often, during his twelve-hour shift. Daigle testified that even going up and down the list twice or more, he sometimes still does not find enough trucks to handle the work FDF has coming in. In support of that testimony, applicant introduced FDF’s daily call log, which Daigle explained represents only 20% to 30% of the calls actually received because of time and manpower limitations; the log thus represents important requests and some of FDF’s main customers. These logs, Dai-gle testified, display instances when FDF was unable to obtain the number of trucks needed. When this happens, FDF usually has to wait until the next day to obtain a vacuum truck based on a requirement that trucks can only run a rough estimate of 14-hour days, thereafter followed by a 10-hour break. Daigle testified to a number of documented occurrences in which a customer called to request a vacuum truck but FDF was unable to locate an unoccupied truck.

Daigle testified that not being able to locate a truck timely creates a problem because a number of the customers need to remove the waste fluid from the site due to limited space issues. Daigle further testified that, on occasion, customers Jjjthemselves would call some of the trucking companies listed on the MSA. Daigle testified that a number of customers are oil companies that cannot wait until the next day for proper clean-up. He stated that, generally, unless FDF is given 12 to 24-hour notice from the requesting customer, there are not enough trucks to fulfill the customers’ requests. Applicant’s Exhibit No. 2 consists of log notes from a recent period prior to the hearing, roughly 7/27/06 to 9/14/06. While reading excerpts from those logs, Daigle identified seven incidents in which FDF was unable to locate one or more available trucks for use, some of which placed the oil company and drilling company customers in a bind. However, Daigle reiterated that there are numerous more incidents in which FDF was not able to acquire a vacuum truck from outside companies, even though time or manpower issues prevented those instances from being thoroughly logged in. He explained that many of the oil company and drilling company customers call at the last minute and, therefore, they cannot wait until the next day; consequently, he stated, unless the customers give advance notice, there are not enough trucks to meet customer demand. Daigle stated that volume was such that FDF could probably keep all the carriers’ trucks running everyday if the trucking companies had a truck available. Daigle testified that FDF supported Southern’s application.

On cross-examination, Daigle explained how FDF bills customers and pays the trucking companies. When asked by prot-estante counsel if FDF is a shipper, Dai-gle answered affirmatively. Daigle also testified that FDF has its own carrier authority from the Commission. Essentially, Daigle explained that FDF acts as the “company man” for the oil company, by handling all the shipping logistics. Daigle also explained that the MSA lists “pretty much” all the vendors in the area, and once that list is exhausted, there is “really nobody left to call,” unless he called carriers from | inTexas, resulting in higher costs to the customer. Although Daigle had not called the Commission for a list of carriers in that area, he stated that carriers usually contacted FDF and that, from his knowledge, there were no other trucking companies not on the list. Daigle also explained that FDF ultimately had the responsibility for getting the waste product hauled away, and the requests that could not be immediately satisfied, were generally completed in 12 to 24 hours. FDF itself often does not have enough trucks, Daigle testified, but when asked if that was the nature of the business, Daigle explained that, while it could be, many of the new drilling locations were restricted sites that run a closed loop system, meaning that everything that is hauled in must be hauled out because there is no pit system. Daigle stated there is a need for additional carriers in that area with the authority to haul waste, especially when a carrier enters a location with new product but cannot haul out the waste product because that carrier lacks the authority to do so. Calling another truck to haul the waste out creates problems, too, because the drilling locations have limited room and more trucks on one location at a timé is inconvenient for the customer. Daigle explained that, once the fluid is taken to the site, eventually it has to be hauled away; thus, about half the calls received by FDF are for disposal.

Protestant’s Case

Vacuum Truck Carriers was the remaining opponent of the application at the time of the 2006 hearing. Troy Yonker, the owner of Pride Oilfield Services, a vacuum truck service out of Benton, Louisiana, testified that his Commission authority is restricted to the northern part of Louisiana. He stated that he is familiar with the MSA and that Pride Oilfield holds a saltwater certificate from the Commission. Mr. Yonker stated he is against statewide authority for Southern, because such authority would enable it to serve north Louisiana as well. Yonker |nstated that Pride Oilfield had applied for and been denied statewide authority and that, had it been granted statewide authority, Pride Oilfield could, and should be allowed to, provide service to FDF if there are more trucks needed. He stated his company, which has safety programs in place and carries liability insurance, is adding new equipment and could always use additional business. Pride Oilfield, whose terminal is located in Haughton, Louisiana, has eleven tractors and twelve tankers. Yonker stated that there is nothing unique or special about Southern’s equipment, in his view, but agreed there is a possibility he would be willing to lease Southern’s trucks if it wanted to operate in Pride Oilfield’s area. To laughter in the hearing room, he added that he hopefully would see counsel later for a statewide permit “to accommodate these guys down south.” On cross-examination, Yonker testified that the geographical cut-off line for Pride Oilfield’s authority was just south of Alexandria, Louisiana, and that his company does not have authority to transport regulated waste below its authority marker.

Crystal Miers, employed by Louisiana Tank of Church Point, Louisiana, testified that she is responsible for sales and dispatching. Louisiana Tank, which has a certificate of liability insurance and safety programs in place, has statewide authority to transport drilling fluids for disposal; its main terminal is located in Lake Charles, Louisiana (37 units), with additional terminals in Church Point (5 units), Fourchon (18 units), and Pitkin (2 units). Miers testified that Louisiana Tank, which currently provides services to FDF, could use more business and revenue. She testified that Louisiana Tank would be willing to step up their service if the need were there and that they periodically acquire new equipment as the needs of the shipping public arise. Louisiana Tank opposed the application because, Miers explained, there are always instances when trucks cannot be found, but that it is not everyday that they | ^are turning down business, as Louisiana Tank had idle trucks the week of the hearing.

On cross-examination, Miers conceded that Louisiana Tank leases the Fourchon and Pitkin terminals, and their units, from other trucking companies. She explained that all of Louisiana Tank’s trucks consist of owner/operators that are leased to them in each terminal they have, because it is easier than having company employees. She admitted that these owner/operators could stop working for the company at any time. As to Daigle’s testimony, Miers agreed that there are times when Louisiana Tank has turned down requests from FDF, but on re-direct, she stated that the number of requests turned down is smaller than the number of requests accepted.

Kenneth Bourque, the owner of Bourque Vacuum Service, Inc., in Duson, Louisiana, testified that his company has held statewide authority from the Commission for 21 years. The company has a safety program, possesses a certificate of liability insurance, as required by most MSAs, owns eight trucks, and leases two more. Bourque testified that his company provides service to FDF through the MSA, business that is important to his company. Bourque stated that, if the applicant is granted authority, it would be detrimental to his company because FDF would be calling the applicant instead of him. As to Daigle’s testimony, Bourque admitted there are some instances when there are not enough trucks to fulfill the requests of its customers; he estimated he is unable to provide service one or two percent of the time. Bourque testified that he has the financial wherewithal to acquire new trucks, but even if he acquired ten new trucks, there would be times when he would be unable to provide service to shippers, explaining that the business is cyclical and “runs in spurts.” He agreed he would be willing to lease authority to additional owner/operators if he saw the demand, and added that he would be willing to take on | ^Southern’s trucks immediately under his company’s own authority: “Yeah, I’d lease them on now. If they want to come lease, it wouldn’t be no problem.” On cross-examination, Bourque stated that the owner/operators leased under his authority receive a percentage of the revenue only when they do work for Bourque Vacuum Service, Inc. When asked whether Southern would ever be called on to perform work and receive revenue if leased under Bourque’s authority, Bourque stated, “That wouldn’t be a problem. There’d be plenty of work.”

Public Need or Demand

We first find that the evidence reasonably supports a determination that there is a public need or demand for Southern’s proposed operation. A prima facie case of public need or demand requires that the applicant, through competent evidence, must establish with specific facts, rather than general, conclusory statements, that the service under the authority sought is needed and that such service is not otherwise available. Mat-lack, Inc., 622 So.2d at 656-657. Daigle, whose company is not only a carrier with its own authority from the Commission, but also a shipper who additionally contracts with vacuum truck companies on behalf of other shippers, testified with a supporting exhibit consisting of current log entries that his company has been unable to secure transportation of drilling fluids for disposal on numerous occasions. Though only seven denials of service were logged in within a period of less than two months, Daigle testified there were numerous instances when trucks [14were not available that were not logged in and that the logs represented only about 20 to 30% of these calls. Thus, his testimony and the supporting evidence, if accepted by the Commission, reasonably established that 23 to 35 calls for service were not timely satisfied over the time period for which he produced log excerpts. But Daigle’s testimony regarding unmet disposal service requests was further bolstered by the testimony of the protestant’s witnesses, Miers and Bourque, who both agreed that their companies have had to turn down service requests from FDF. Though they explained those refusals as few and the result of cyclical demand, that testimony supports applicant’s case that there is a public need or demand for his proposed operation. The protestant’s only other witness, Yonker, could not testify as to public demand or need, or lack thereof, south of Alexandria. Additionally, through Daigle’s testimony, Southern established that an important aspect of the modern oil drilling industry was quick and timely removal of waste drilling fluids from the drilling location, because those locations are restricted in size and operate with closed-loop systems. Thus, his testimony establishes not only that shippers’ requests for service are not being met, but also why such requests for timely service are critical to the shippers’ operations.

Inadequacy of Existing Carrier Service

In that vein, the evidence and testimony in the record also reasonably supports a determination that the available transportation service is inadequate in that existing carriers are either incapable or unwilling to handle a specific shipping need in a reasonably satisfactory manner. To meet its burden of establishing the inadequacy of existing carrier service, the applicant must demonstrate that shippers have attempted and failed to obtain service or that service, when obtained, was deficient. Matlack, Inc., 622 So.2d at 658. The applicant must affirmatively show a need for ^service based on “a consistent and recurring inability to secure adequate and satisfactory service from existing carriers.” Louisiana Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 549 So.2d 850, 857 (La.1989).

Daigle’s testimony, coupled with the log entries and the admissions of Miers and Bourque, reasonably supports a finding that shippers repeated attempts to obtain timely drilling waste removal service have failed. Daigle testified that the MSA used by FDF consists of nearly all, if not all, of the available trucking companies with the authority to operate in that part of the state. He stated that he would perhaps have to resort to non-Louisiana carriers to meet the needs of the customers. As set forth above, his testimony and the log exhibit show drilling mud disposal requests are presently not being met, and that timely satisfaction of those requests is now critical to the oil industry. Thus, while the evidence shows that the service requests may ultimately be satisfied within 12 to 24 hours of the request, Daigle explained why even such a seemingly minimal delay is unsatisfactory to FDF and the oil and drilling companies which FDF serves. Nothing in the record contradicts that testimony; therefore, given that the Commission obviously accepted his testimony, it could reasonably have found that current service providers are not meeting shippers’ particular service requests, and even when current operators eventually do respond to those requests, the service supplied does not adequately satisfy the shippers’ need for more timely removal of the drilling waste from the drilling location. Both Miers and Bourque testified that their companies would be willing and able to acquire more trucks, likely through lease agreements with new owner/operators, if they perceived a rise in demand. However, their testimony was arguably contradicted by their own admissions that service requests are currently and routinely being turned down, and yet neither witness testified that their companies are presently planning to acquire any 11fimore trucks to meet those current needs. Yonker testified that his company would be willing and able to supply some of the services needed “to accommodate those guys down south,” but only if he were granted statewide authority from the Commission, an authority he currently does not have. Accordingly, we cannot say the evidence in the record fails to support a finding of inadequacy of existing carrier service.

Effect on Existing Carriers

Next, we find the Commission, on the evidence before it, could have reasonably concluded that advantages to the shipping public outweigh the actual or potential disadvantages to the existing carriers if the requested authority is granted. Even when an applicant successfully shows that its proposed new operation will serve a public need or demand that existing carriers could not or would not serve, the applicant must still show that the advantages to the shipping public (shippers’ needs for the new service) outweigh the actual or potential disadvantages to the existing carriers (adequacy of existing carrier service) that may result from granting the certificate. Matlack, Inc., 622 So.2d at 660. While a grant of additional authority that allows a new competitor to enter a market already served by existing carriers could and perhaps will result in adverse affects on those carriers, existing carriers have a basis for complaining only if the added service is not in the public interest. Matlack, Inc., 622 So.2d at 660 (citing Hilt Truck Line, Inc. v. United States, 532 F.2d 1199, 1203 (8th Cir.1976)).

Here, the Commission could have reasonably concluded that the addition of Southern as a carrier of drilling waste for disposal — in a limited geographical area and with additional restrictions — would result in sufficient improvement in existing service to shippers to justify the potential costs to existing carriers. Daigle’s testimony reasonably demonstrates that there would be verifiable advantages to 117shippers of drilling waste for removal if Southern’s limited authority were granted. Given the testimony of both Daigle and Bourque that there was plenty of work to go around and given that the testimony of both Miers and Bourque suggested that peak demands would still not be met if more trucks were added, the Commission could have reasonably found that the potential negative effects on existing carriers would not outweigh the established advantages to the shippers. The Commission could have reasoned on this evidence that depriving the existing carriers of traffic they are authorized to transport by adding a new competitive service would not result in needlessly duplicative transportation services or significantly prevent existing carriers from operating at full capacity. See Matlack, Inc., 622 So.2d at 660-61. Moreover, it is significant that the Commission limited and restricted the authority it granted to Southern to a specific and delineated geographical area, effectively denying, at least in part, Southern’s request for statewide authority. Given that the Commission is certainly aware of the importance of the drilling industry to Louisiana and its citizens, and given that the Commission intentionally limited and restricted the authority it granted to Southern, the Commission could have reasonably found on the record evidence that the public interest would be materially promoted by granting the application in the manner and to the extent it did.

CONCLUSION

Mindful that our role in reviewing the determinations of the Commission is not to sit as a super-Commission assessing the credibility of the witnesses and weighing the evidence, we cannot say that the Commission acted arbitrarily or capriciously in granting Southern the limited and restricted authority to transport drilling mud for disposal originating in six named parishes, with additional restrictions specifically prohibiting transportation by dump truck of non-hazardous solid waste originating in 118three other named parishes. While under La.Rev.Stat. 45:164 the applicant must clearly show that public convenience and necessity would be materially promoted by the issuance of the requested common carrier certificate, the burden is on the protestant to show that the Commission’s order granting that certificate is invalid, Louisiana Household Goods Carriers, 00-2803, p. 4, 781 So.2d at 548, and the protestant here has not established that the Commission made an error of law or that its factual findings are not reasonably supported by the evidence in the record. Whether this court might have reached a different result is not the standard of our review; instead, we are called upon to determine only if there is sufficient evidence in the record that would reasonably support the factual findings of the Commission. Because we cannot say those findings are unreasonable on this record, we find the district court erred in concluding otherwise and in reversing the Commission’s order. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s ruling rescinding the Commission’s Order No. T-29541 and reinstate that order.

DECREE

For the reasons expressed above, the judgment of the district court, rescinding the Commission’s Order No. T-29541 granting Southern a common carrier cer-tifícate with limited and restricted authority, is reversed, and the Commission’s ox*-der is reinstated. All costs of this appeal are assessed against the protestant, Vacuum Truck Cai'riers.

REVERSED; ORDER NO. T-29541 REINSTATED.

      . Although the protestant asserts that Daigle is not a "shipper witness,” Daigle responded affirmatively to protestant counsel's question whether FDF is a shipper itself. The protestant has pointed to nothing in the record that would contradict Daigle's testimony. Further, although the protestant asserts at least five shipper witnesses must testify in favor of the applicant to show a sufficient need to support the request for statewide common carrier authority, as opposed to merely a contract carrier request, the protestant points to no jurisprudence from this court requiring a specific number of shipper witnesses. Additionally, we note that Daigle stated FDF was not only a shipper itself, but it also acted on behalf of a number of oil company and drilling company customers in securing transportation of drilling waste for disposal. Again, there is nothing in the record that has been brought to our attention that would contradict Daigle’s testimony in that regard. At any rate, as discussed infra, the Commission effectively denied in part statewide authority when it limited Southern's authority to a specific geographical area.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Gwen LYNCH v. Wendy KENNARD and Safeco Insurance Company.
    No. 2009-CC-282.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 15, 2009.
    Rehearing Denied June 17, 2009.
   PER CURIAM.

| /Writ granted. This instant matter arises from a motor vehicle accident .involving a vehicle owned and operated by defendant, Wendy Kennard, and a vehicle owned and operated by plaintiff, Gwen Lynch. Gwen Lynch filed suit against Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company (“Progi'essive”), seeking uninsured/under-insured motorist (“UM”) coverage based on a policy issued by Progressive to her ex-husband, Royden Lynch. Progressive filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Royden Lynch had rejected UM coverage. Ms. Lynch filed a cross-motion, arguing that the UM rejection form signed by Royden Lynch was invalid because: (1) Mr. Lynch’s secretary, and not Mr. Lynch himself, had filled in the blank for the date, and (2) in the lower left-hand corner of the UM rejection form the name of the insurance company was represented as “Progressive Security Insurance Company” rather than the actual name “Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company.”

lain this case, it is uncontested that the UM rejection form was “signed by the named insured.” La. R.S. 22:680(l)(a)(ii). Furthermore, when the UM rejection form was returned to Progressive, the form, on its face, was “properly completed.” La. R.S. 22:680(l)(a)(ii). On the UM rejection form at issue, Royden Lynch’s initials are placed in the blank next to the option for rejecting UM coverage; Royden Lynch’s name is typed in the blank for the printed name of the insured; Royden Lynch’s signature is in the blank for the signature of the named insured; the correct policy number is typed into the appropriate blank, and; the blank for the date is filled in. See Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 06-363, p. 11-12 (La.2/16/07), 950 So.2d 544, 551. The legislature has made it abundantly clear that “[a] properly completed and signed form creates a rebuttable presumption that the insured knowingly rejected coverage ...” La. R.S. 22:680(l)(a)(ii). Respondent, Gwen Lynch, has presented no evidence to rebut the presumption that Royden Lynch knowingly rejected UM coverage. Thus, under the facts of this case, we find that Progressive has established that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The lower courts erred in finding otherwise.

^DECREE

For the reasons stated herein, the writ is granted. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and summary judgment is rendered in favor of Progressive, dismissing it from the suit with prejudice. This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

JOHNSON, J., would deny.

      . Gwen Lynch and Royden Lynch were married on December 27, 2004, when Mr. Lynch executed the UM rejection form; however, they were divorced at the time of the accident which is the basis for this lawsuit.

      . In a deposition, Mr. Lynch’s secretary testified that, after Mr. Lynch signed the UM rejection form, she inserted the date on the UM rejection form as Mr. Lynch was walking out of the office.

      . This revised statute was redesignated as 22:1295 by Act 415 of the 2008 Louisiana Legislative Session; effective January 1, 2009. This act made no substantive changes to the language of the provision. Furthermore, during the temporal period at issue in these proceedings, no substantive changes were made to the pertinent language in the provision at issue.

      . As we noted in Gingles v. Dardenne, 08-2995 (La.4/17/09), 4 So.3d 799, a UM rejection form which, on its face, complies with the six tasks enumerated in Duncan, supra, yet fails to comply with Louisiana Bulletin LIRC 98-01(requiring that the insurance company name must be placed at the lower left-hand corner of a UM rejection form), may still be found to constitute a "properly completed” form, La. R.S. 22:680(1)(a)(ii), sufficient to establish the statutory rebuttable presumption that the insured has knowingly rejected UM coverage. Thus, in the present matter, the fact that the insurance company is identified in the bottom left-hand comer of the pertinent UM rejection form as "Progressive Security Insurance Company” rather than "Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company” does not prevent the establishment of the statutory presumption of a knowing and valid rejection of UM coverage. La. R.S. 22:680(l)(a)(ii). Furthermore, respondent has presented this Court with no evidence to rebut this presumption. There is no evidence that this error prevented Royden Lynch from knowingly rejecting UM coverage.


author: KIMBALL, Chief Justice.

text:
    Mary CUTSINGER v. Laura REDFERN, Usagencies Casualty Insurance Company, Inc., and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
    No. 2008-C-2607.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 22, 2009.

      Armour Law Firm, Bonita Preuett-Arm-our, Rebecca Boyett, Alexandria, for applicant.
    Thomas Overton Wells, Neblett, Beard & Arsenault, Gary Joseph Arsenault, Alexandria, for respondent.
   KIMBALL, Chief Justice.

| |This case involves an uninsured motorist carrier who seeks to enforce its policy language allowing it to reduce any amount payable under its uninsured motorist coverage by any amount paid to or on behalf of its injured insured pursuant to the workers’ compensation law. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the uninsured motorist carrier and the workers’ compensation insurer are solidary obligors such that payment by one solidary obligor extinguishes the obligation of the other solidary obligor to the extent of the payment. We further conclude the collateral source rule does not apply to override the principles of solidary liability expressly set forth in the Civil Code. Because we find the injured party is provided full recovery of those damages paid by the workers’ compensation insurer even when the uninsured motorist carrier is allowed to reduce its payments by the amounts paid by the | {¡workers’ compensation insurer, we conclude the policy language is not against public policy and is enforceable.

Facts and Procedural History

Plaintiff, Mary Cutsinger, instituted the present action in the Pineville City Court against defendants, Laura Redfern (“the tortfeasor”), and her supposed automobile liability insurer, USAgencies Casualty Insurance Company (“USAgencies”), for damages she allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident on December 12, 2006. Plaintiffs uninsured motorist carrier, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), was also named as a defendant. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was in the course and scope of her employment. Accordingly, she was subsequently provided workers’ compensation benefits by her employer.

USAgencies answered the petition and generally denied its allegations. It further asserted that although it had previously issued a policy of automobile liability insurance to the tortfeasor, the policy was canceled for non-payment of premium on December 6, 2006, at 12:01 a.m. USAgen-cies also filed a motion for summary judgment asking that it be dismissed from the proceedings with prejudice based on the cancellation of the policy. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs claims against USAgen-cies. The tortfeasor was thus uninsured at the time of the accident.

Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment asserting there was no question of material fact and judgment should be rendered finding that Laura Redfern, the tortfeasor, was solely liable for the accident at issue, that State Farm issued a policy of automobile liability insurance to plaintiff that provides uninsured motorist coverage for the accident at issue, that at the time of the accident Laura [sRedfern, the tortfeasor, was uninsured, and that State Farm is not entitled to a credit nor is it allowed to reduce the uninsured motorist coverage afforded plaintiff by any payments that may be made by plaintiff s employer or its workers’ compensation carrier. After a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment as to liability, finding that the tortfeasor was solely at fault in causing the accident, that the tortfeasor was an uninsured motorist at the time of the accident, and that State Farm provided uninsured motorist coverage at the time of the accident to plaintiff. Further, the trial court granted summary judgment as to the issue of credit, finding that State Farm is not allowed to reduce the uninsured motorist benefits by any workers’ compensation payments made to plaintiff.

State Farm appealed that portion of the judgment prohibiting it from reducing the uninsured motorist benefits by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid to plaintiff. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on this issue. Cutsinger v. Redfern, 08-134 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/1/08), 997 So.2d 585. In affirming the judgment of the trial court that disallowed the credit sought by State Farm, the court of appeal distinguished this court’s decision in Bellard v. American Central Ins. Co., 07-1335 (La.4/18/08), 980 So.2d 654, and concluded the collateral source rule applies to prohibit plaintiffs uninsured motorist carrier from reducing its uninsured motorist benefits by the amount of workers’ compensation payments received by plaintiff. In Bellard, this court concluded that an employer’s uninsured motorist carrier is entitled to a credit in the amount of payments made by the employer and/or its workers’ compensation insurer to or on behalf of plaintiff. In reaching this decision, we found the employer’s uninsured motorist carrier and the employer and/or its workers’ compensation insurer were |4solidary obligors as to lost wages and medical expenses and, moreover, that the collateral source doctrine did not apply to prevent the credit. In the instant case, the court of appeal determined that because the plaintiff herself, and not her employer, paid for the uninsured motorist coverage, the collateral source rule applies and State Farm cannot reduce the uninsured motorist benefits by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid to plaintiff.

We granted certiorari to consider the correctness of the court of appeal’s judgment. Cutsinger v. Redfern, 08-2607 (La.1/16/09), 998 So.2d 88.

Discussion

A motion for summary judgment will be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” La. C.C.P. art. 966(B). The summary judgment procedure is favored and is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of actions. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(2). Appellate courts review a judgment granting or denying a motion for summary judgment de novo. Bonin v. Westport Ins. Corp., 05-0886, p. 4 (La.5/17/06), 930 So.2d 906, 910. Thus, appellate courts ask the same questions the trial court does in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate: whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., 93-2512, p. 26 (La.7/5/94), 639 So.2d 730, 750. Interpretation of an insurance policy ordinarily involves a legal question that can be properly resolved by a motion for summary judgment. Bonin, 05-0886 at p. 4, 930 So.2d at 910.

It is well-settled that an insurer may limit liability and impose reasonable restrictions upon its policy obligations provided that such limitations do not conflict Iswith statutory provisions or public policy. Bonin, 05-0886 at p. 5, 930 So.2d at 911; Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 02-1637, p. 9 (La.6/27/03), 848 So.2d 577, 583; Etienne v. National Automobile Ins. Co., 99-2610, p. 4 (La.4/25/00), 759 So.2d 51, 54. The law governing uninsured motorist coverage, La. R.S. 22:680, provides in part:

No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle designed for use on public highways and required to be registered in this state or as provided in this Section unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto, in not less than the limits of bodily injury liability provided by the policy, under provisions filed with and approved by the commissioner of insurance, for the protection of person insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover nonpunitive damages from owners or operators of uninsured or underinsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death resulting therefrom; however, the coverage required under this Section is not applicable when any insured named in the policy either rejects coverage, selects lower limits, or selects economic-only coverage, in the manner provided in Item (l)(a)(ii) of this Section.

An uninsured motorist insurer’s liability “is conditioned by the tortfeasor’s total or partial lack of liability insurance, the type of damage [the tortfeasor] has caused and any limits in the insurer’s policy that are permitted by law.” Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 575, 579 (La.1982). Uninsured motorist coverage embodies a strong public policy, which is to provide full recovery for innocent automobile accident victims who suffer damages caused by a tortfeasor who is not adequately covered by liability, insurance. Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 06-0363, p. 4 (La.11/29/06), 950 So.2d 544, 547. The underlying purpose of uninsured motorist coverage “is to promote and effectuate complete reparation, no more or no less.” Hoefly, 418 So.2d at 579.

| (¡To carry out the objective of providing reparation for persons injured through no fault of their own, the statute is liberally construed. Taylor v. Rowell 98-2865, p. 5 (La.5/18/99), 736 So.2d 812, 816; Roger v. Estate of Moulton, 513 So.2d 1126, 1130 (La.1987). Any exclusion in uninsured motorist coverage must be clear and unmistakable. Duncan, 06-0363 at pp. 4-5, 950 So.2d at 547.

The uninsured motorist coverage that plaintiff purchased from State Farm contains a provision that any amount due under the policy’s uninsured motorist provisions shall be reduced by any amount paid pursuant to the workers’ compensation law. Specifically, the policy provides, under its uninsured motorist coverage, that the insurer will pay nonpunitive damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle. The policy further provides:

Limits of Liability Under Coverage U

[uninsured motorist coverage]
2. Any amount payable under this coverage shall be reduced by any amount paid or payable to or for the insured:
b. under any workers’ compensation, disability benefits, or similar law.
This does not reduce the limits of liability of this coverage.

The language of this provision is clear and unambiguous. It provides that any damages for bodily injury for which the uninsured tortfeasor is liable that are also paid or payable to the insured under any workers’ compensation law, such as lost wages and medical benefits, will not be paid under the insured’s uninsured motorist coverage. This reduction, however, will not reduce the limits of liability of the uninsured motorist coverage.

Plaintiff contends the uninsured motorist statute does not allow the insurer to 17reduce uninsured motorist benefits by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid to the insured. Plaintiff asserts the contract language is therefore in derogation of state law. She argues it would be a clear violation of public policy to allow a credit to an uninsured motorist insurer for workers’ compensation benefits paid to an insured. State Farm, on the other hand, contends plaintiff contracted for the credit and no statute prohibits it from asserting the credit.

In Bellard v. American Central Ins. Co., 07-1335 (La.4/18/08), 980 So.2d 654, this court concluded an employer’s uninsured motorist carrier is entitled to a credit for medical and disability wage benefits paid on behalf of or to- the plaintiff by the workers’ compensation insurer. Although the uninsured motorist policy in that case did not contain language dictating the reduction in coverage for benefits paid under workers’ compensation insurance, this court nevertheless held the employer’s uninsured motorist carrier was entitled to the credit based on principles of solidarity and the inapplicability of the collateral source doctrine. Based on those same principles of solidary obligations and a finding that the collateral source doctrine does not apply in the instant case, as well as the purpose underlying the law governing uninsured motorist coverage, we find the language contained in State Farm’s policy relating to the reduction in uninsured motorist payments for any workers’ compensation benefits paid to the insured is not against public policy and is therefore enforceable.

Louisiana Civil Code article 1794 provides the following with respect to a soli-dary obligation:

An obligation is solidary for the obligors when each obligor is liable for the whole performance. A performance rendered by one of the solidary obligors relieves the others of liability toward the obligee.

Applying this article, we explained in Bel-lard that a solidary obligation exists when |8the obligors: (1) are obliged to the same thing, (2) so that each may be compelled for the whole, and (3) when payment by one exonerates the other from liability toward the creditor. Bellard, 07-1335 at p. 11, 980 So.2d at 663-64 (citing Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 575, 576 (La.1982)). We noted that in Hoefly we examined each of these requirements to find the existence of solidary liability between an uninsured motorist carrier and a tortfeasor. Similarly, in Narcise v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 427 So.2d 1192 (La.1983), we used these standards to find the existence of solidary liability between a railroad company liable to its employee under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51, et seq., and a tortfeasor. We also recounted that in Williams v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 611 So.2d 1383 (La. 1993), we again used the same analysis to find solidary liability between an employer and a third party tortfeasor. Finally, we explained that in each case, “we recognized and emphasized that it is the coextensiveness of the obligations for the same debt which creates the solidarity of the obligation.” Bellard, 07-1335 at p. 11, 980 So.2d at 664.

After observing these previous decisions in which we have found the existence of solidary obligations between an uninsured motorist carrier and a tortfeasor and between an employer sued for workers’ compensation benefits and a third par-tytortfeasor, we concluded in Bellard that “an analysis of the respective obligations of the uninsured motorist carrier and the employer and/or its workers’ compensation insurer leads to the conclusion that the requirements for a solidary obligation between these entities are satisfied.” Bel-lard, 07-1335 at p. 11, 980 So.2d at 664. We thoroughly analyzed each of the components of solidarity to reach the conclusion that the uninsured motorist insurer and the employer and/or its workers’ compensation carrier are solidary obligors. As to the first component, we determined after a lengthy 19discussion that pursuant to the effect of law and the terms of their independent insuring agreements, the uninsured motorist carrier and the workers’ compensation insurer are obliged to the same thing since they share coextensive obligations to reimburse the tort victim for lost wages and medical expenses caused by the tortfeasor. Bellard, 07-1335 at p. 13, 980 So.2d at 665. We pointed out that the workers’ compensation insurer and the uninsured motorist carrier are obligated to the same thing even though their obligations arise from different laws or different sources for each obli-gor. Bellard, 07-1335 at p. 14, 980 So.2d at 665. See also La. C.C. art. 1797. Regarding the second component of solidarity, we determined that the uninsured motorist carrier and the employer and/or its workers’ compensation insurer share a common liability that is not subject to a plea of division. Bellard, 07-1335 at p. 14, 980 So.2d at 665-66. Thus, each obligor is bound for the whole as to each element of damage that is coextensive. Bellard, 07-1335 at p. 15, 980 So.2d at 666. Finally, we explained that as to the payment of lost wages and medical expenses, payment of the debt by either obligor exonerates the other from liability to the creditor. Bel-lard, 07-1385 at p. 16, 980 So.2d at 666. Accordingly, in Bellard, we found all the requirements for a solidary obligation were met.

In the instant case, the same analysis applies and we conclude the uninsured motorist carrier and the workers’ compensation insurer are solidary obligors. The fact that the uninsured motorist coverage was procured by plaintiff in this case rather than her employer as was the case in Bellard makes no difference in the solidarity analysis. The result of the relevant inquiry is the same regardless of who purchased the uninsured motorist coverage. For the same reasons we recently provided in Bellard, we find the uninsured motorist carrier and the workers’ compensation insurer are obliged to the same thing, may each be compelled for the whole of their common | inliability, and payment by one exonerates the other as to the creditor. Therefore, we find the uninsured motorist carrier and the workers’ compensation insurer are solidary obligors who have coextensive obligations to reimburse plaintiff for lost wages and medical expenses she incurred as a result of her injury caused by the tortfeasor.

Because the uninsured motorist carrier and the workers’ compensation insurer are solidary obligors, payment by one obligor relieves the other obligor of liability toward the obligee. When the workers’ compensation insurer pays benefits to plaintiff in the form of lost wages and medical expenses, the liability of the uninsured motorist carrier towards the plaintiff for those same lost wages and medical expenses is discharged. Consequently, the uninsured motorist carrier is no longer liable to plaintiff for the lost wages and medical expenses paid by the workers’ compensation insurer, and is entitled to reduce the payments owed under its uninsured motorist coverage by the amount of benefits paid by the workers’ compensation insurer. Plaintiff has fully recovered those damages, and the underlying purpose of the uninsured motorist law, which “is to promote and effectuate complete reparation, no more or no less,” Hoefly, 418 So.2d at 579, is not hindered by the application of solidarity in this instance. Thus, the policy language mandating a reduction in uninsured motorist payments for any workers’ compensation benefits paid to the insured is consistent with the principle of solidary liability and the underlying purpose of the uninsured motorist law.

This court has twice concluded that the collateral source rule does not apply to override the principles of solidarity expressly provided by the Civil Code. Bellard, 07-1835 at p. 23, 980 So.2d at 670-71; Fertitta v. Allstate Ins. Co., 462 So.2d 159, 164 (La.1985). Nevertheless, plaintiff contends, and the court of appeal agreed, that the collateral source rule applies in this case to prohibit the uninsured motorist carrier 11Tfrom reducing plaintiffs benefits under its uninsured motorist coverage for any workers’ compensation payments made to or on behalf of plaintiff in accordance with its status as a solidary obligor. In Bellard, we explained that the collateral source rule was jurisprudentially imported into our law from the common law. Bel-lard, 07-1335 at p. 18, 980 So.2d at 667. The rule provides that “a tortfeasor may not benefit, and an injured plaintiffs tort recovery may not be reduced, because of monies received by the plaintiff from sources independent of the tortfeasor’s procuration or contribution.” Bellard, 07-1335 at p. 18, 980 So.2d at 668 (quoting Bozeman v. State, 03-1016, p. 9 (La.7/2/04), 879 So.2d 692, 698). The primary policy reason for the application of the collateral source rule is tort deterrence. Bellard, 07-1335 at p. 19, 980 So.2d at 668; Bozeman, 03-1016 at p. 12, 879 So.2d at 700. The rule reflects the beliefs that the tortfeasor should not profit from the victim’s prudence in obtaining insurance, and that by reducing the amount the tortfeasor would have to pay, the deterrent effect of the law would be hampered. Bellard, 07-1335 at p. 19, 980 So.2d at 668.

Courts have struggled with that aspect of the collateral source rule that seemingly allows the victim to receive a double recovery or windfall when he receives an outside payment. The purpose of tort damages is to make the victim whole, but when the victim is allowed to recover the same element of damages twice, that goal is thwarted. Bellard, 07-1385 at p. 19, 980 So.2d at 668. However, this court has explained that an objectionable windfall does not occur when the injured party’s patrimony was diminished to the extent that he was forced to recover against outside sources, and the diminution of his patrimony constituted additional damages he suffered. Bozeman, 03-1016 at p. 10, 879 So.2d at 699. In Bellard, we utilized the Bozeman rationale to state that “whether the collateral source rule applies depends to 112a certain extent upon whether the victim has procured the. collateral benefits for himself or has in some manner sustained a diminution in his or her patrimony in order to secure the collateral benefits such that he or she is not merely reaping a windfall or double recovery.” Bellard, 07-1335 at p. 20, 980 So.2d at 669.

Applying the foregoing principles, we concluded in Bellard that two primary considerations are guiding with respect to the collateral source rule: (1) whether application of the rule will further the major policy goal of tort deterrence; and (2) whether the victim, by having a collateral source available as a source of recovery, either paid for such benefit or suffered some diminution in his patrimony because of the availability of the benefit such that no actual double recovery would result from application of the rule. Bellard, 07-1335 at pp. 20-21, 980 So.2d at 669. Employing these considerations lead us to conclude that the collateral source rule did not apply in that case. First, we determined that because neither the tortfea-sor nor her insurer, who had both settled with the plaintiff and were released, was requesting the reduction of damages or would benefit from the credit, application of the collateral source rule would not serve the goal of tort deterrence. Second, we found that application of the rule to prohibit a credit for workers’ compensation benefits received by the victim would allow the "victim to receive a double recovery of those benefits without having sustained a diminution in his patrimony because of the availability of workers’ compensation benefits. We concluded, “The collateral source rule has no application in cases where the plaintiff is injured in the course and scope of his employment at the hands of a third party tort-feasor and the employer is without fault.” Bellard, 07-1335 at p. 22, 980 So.2d at 670. Thus, we found the principles of solidarity applied to mandate a credit in favor of the employer’s uninsured motorist carrier in the amount of payments made by the employer and/or its workers’ 1 ^compensation insurer to or on behalf of plaintiff.

In discussing the applicability of the collateral source rule to the facts of the instant case, the court of appeal majority distinguished Bellard on the basis that the uninsured motorist coverage in that case was provided by the plaintiffs employer, and focused solely on the fact that plaintiff herself paid for the uninsured motorist coverage. Based on this distinction, the court concluded plaintiff would not be receiving a double recovery if the reduction in uninsured motorist payments was disallowed. Consequently, it found the collateral source rule applied and refused to allow plaintiffs uninsured motorist carrier to reduce its payments to plaintiff by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits she had received.

In examining the applicability of the collateral source rule, the majority of the court of appeal viewed our decision in Bel-lard too narrowly. While it is important to consider whether plaintiff paid for the collateral source or suffered some diminution in her patrimony due to the availability of the benefit to determine whether a double recovery would result from application of the rule, this consideration alone is not the determinative factor in deciding whether the collateral source rule applies. The collateral source rule exists to prevent the tortfeasor from benefitting from the victim’s receipt of monies from independent sources. In this way, the collateral source rule furthers the major policy of tort deterrence. In this case, the tortfea-sor is not requesting the credit for workers’ compensation benefits paid. The tort-feasor will reap no benefits if the collateral source rule is not applied and the uninsured motorist carrier is allowed to reduce its payments to plaintiff by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits she received. The tortfeasor’s position will not change whether or not the credit is allowed. Thus, application of the collateral 114source rule would not further the major policy goal of tort deterrence.

Turning to the consideration of whether the victim paid for the collateral source such that no actual double recovery would result from application of the rule, we note that in Bellard we considered the collateral source to be the workers’ compensation benefits since it was the uninsured motorist carrier, rather than the tortfeasor or the plaintiff, who sought the credit. In the instant case, plaintiff did not sustain a diminution in her patrimony because of the availability of workers’ compensation benefits and could therefore be said to receive a windfall or double recovery of lost wages and medical benefits if the collateral source rule is applied to prohibit the credit for those benefits paid by the workers’ compensation insurer. Here, no right of reimbursement or subrogation exists in favor of the workers’ compensation insurer to prevent a double recovery. The terms of the uninsured motorist coverage purchased by plaintiff provide that there is no uninsured motorist coverage to the extent it benefits any workers’ compensation insurance company. This policy language has been held to be enforceable and not against public policy. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joseph, 95-0200, p. 11 (La.6/30/95), 656 So.2d 1000,1004 (“[N]o statutory provision or policy consideration precludes a UM carrier from contracting to exclude liability for compensation reimbursement.”). Further, workers’ compensation benefits are required by law and the law prohibits an employer from directly or indirectly assessing an employee with the cost of workers’ compensation insurance. La. R.S. 28:1163. See also Bellard, 07-1335 at p. 22, 980 So.2d at 670.

Plaintiff contends, however, and the court of appeal agreed, that she did pay for her own uninsured motorist coverage, which is a collateral source, and therefore | lficannot be said to receive a windfall or double recovery if the collateral source rule is applied to disallow the credit. Even if we were to find an analysis of the uninsured motorist coverage as the collateral source is proper when that entity is the one seeking a credit for benefits paid by a workers’ compensation insurer, we cannot say that she paid for uninsured motorist coverage to compensate her for benefits such as lost wages and medical payments previously paid by her employer’s workers’ compensation insurer or that applying the collateral source rule and disallowing the credit would not result in a windfall or double recovery. That is because the uninsured motorist policy she purchased contained language specifying that any amount payable under uninsured motorist coverage shall be reduced by any amount paid under workers’ compensation benefits. Consequently, when she paid the premium for the uninsured motorist coverage, she did not pay for it to cover benefits paid by the workers’ compensation insurer.

Application of the collateral source rule in this case would not further the major policy goal of tort deterrence and we cannot find that application of the rule would not result in a windfall or double recovery to plaintiff. Further, this court has specifically stated that the collateral source rule does not apply to override the principles of solidarity expressly provided by our Civil Code. In light of these facts, we conclude the collateral source rule should not be applied in this case.

In the instant case, plaintiffs uninsured motorist carrier and her employer’s workers’ compensation insurer are solidary ob-ligors such that payment by one solidary obligor extinguishes the obligation of the other solidary obligor to the extent of the payment. Payment by the workers’ compensation insurer of lost wages and medical benefits fully compensates plaintiff for those damages. The collateral source rule does not apply to override the principles of solidarity. We find the language | ^contained in the uninsured motorist policy allowing the carrier to reduce uninsured motorist benefits by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid to the insured is not against public policy and is enforceable. Thus, the uninsured motorist carrier is entitled to reduce its payments under the uninsured motorist coverage by any amount paid to or on behalf of plaintiff by the workers’ compensation insurer. Consequently, the lower courts erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and thereby not allowing the uninsured motorist carrier to reduce its payments by the amounts paid to or on behalf of plaintiff by the workers’ compensation insurer.

Decree

For the foregoing reasons, we find the lower courts’ judgments granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff insofar as they refused to allow the uninsured 117motorist carrier a credit for the benefits paid to or on behalf of plaintiff by the workers’ compensation insurer were in error. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court for it to conduct further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

VICTORY, J., concurs in the result.

      . One judge concurred in part and dissented in part from the court's ruling.

      . Plaintiff argues that the tortfeasor is benefit-ted when the collateral source rule is not applied and the uninsured motorist carrier is allowed the credit because the uninsured motorist’s subrogation claim against the tortfea-sor would be lessened. While it is true that allowing the credit would decrease the amount the uninsured motorist carrier could seek to recover from the tortfeasor, the tort-feasor would be subject to a claim of reimbursement by the workers’ compensation insurer for the benefits paid to or on behalf of the victim. See La. R.S. 23:1101.

      . We have explained that plaintiff’s uninsured motorist carrier and her employer's workers' compensation insurer are solidary obligors such that payment by one solidary obligor extinguishes the obligation of the other soli-dary obligor to the extent of the payment. Plaintiff is fully compensated for her damages and the obligation of the uninsured motorist carrier is extinguished only when the workers’ compensation insurer actually pays benefits due under the workers’ compensation law. The uninsured motorist policy provides that any amount payable under the uninsured motorist coverage shall be reduced by any amount paid or payable to the insured under any workers' compensation law. Because the solidary obligation is extinguished only when the workers' compensation insurer pays the benefits owed to plaintiff, the language "or payable” is not properly enforceable and should be stricken.

      . In Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joseph, 95-0200 (La.6/30/95), 656 So.2d 1000, this court stated in dicta, "A UM insurer may not reduce its liability by compensation benefits paid to an insured when the credit reduces the UM amount available to the insured. This is consistent with the strong public policy favoring full recovery by UM insureds.” Joseph at p. 11, 656 So.2d at 1004. As evidenced by the foregoing discussion and analysis, this superfluous language was erroneous.
      Along these same lines, plaintiff points out that when her uninsured motorist carrier tendered payment it took a credit for the workers' compensation benefits previously paid to her and the tender was thereby reduced to an amount less than $10,000, the minimum liability limits required by law. This does not invalidate the propriety of the credit. The workers' compensation benefits paid to or on behalf of plaintiff in the form of lost wages and medical payments extinguished the obligation of the uninsured motorist carrier, a solidary obligor, as to those damages. They were no longer due to plaintiff by the uninsured motorist carrier. That fact that the damages owed to her by the uninsured motorist carrier fell below $10,000 does not render the credit against public policy. Rather, the application of principles of solidary liability is in accord with the express public policy of this state. Had the damages owed to plaintiff by the uninsured motorist carrier been greater, they would have been paid by the uninsured motorist carrier up to the limits of its liability.