Application for Assessment of Building Damage Due to Earthquake

TO THE DUTY CIVIL COURT OF PEACE,
DÜZCE

REQUESTING PARTY : [Plaintiff's Name and Surname] (Turkish Republic Identity Number: […]) – [Address]

ATTORNEY : Attorney [Name and Surname of Attorney] – [Address]

SUBJECT : Request for assessment of building damage caused by the earthquake.

EXPLANATIONS :

1. My client is one of the contractors for the immovable property registered in [Province], [Central] District, [Neighborhood], [Island], [Sheet], [Parcel].
2. The building was damaged in the [...] earthquake, and we request that the following be determined:

   a. The nature of the existing damage to the building and whether it is functioning properly according to the Earthquake Regulations

   b. Whether the manufacturing was carried out in accordance with the attached project,

   c. Through manual and visual inspection, it will be determined whether the basic construction materials (reinforcement steel, reinforced concrete, etc.) meet the required conditions and are sufficient

   d. Whether any soil improvement was carried out beneath the foundation soil before the start of foundation construction,

   e. A detailed assessment of the damage to the building.

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST : For the reasons briefly explained above, we respectfully request and demand that the necessary steps be taken to determine the extent of damage to the immovable property registered in [Düzce] Province, [Central] District, [Mehmet Akif] Neighborhood, [..] Island, [..] Sheet, [..] Parcel, due to the earthquake that occurred on [date], through the efforts of expert appraisers.

Attorney Requesting the Determination
: [Attorney's Name and Surname]
Signature

Supreme Court Decision

4th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2021/10421 E., Decision No. 2022/3506 K.

DECISION
The plaintiff's attorney stated that following the earthquake that occurred in Istanbul-Silivri on September 26, 2019, their client's property became unusable, and according to the inspection and assessment report regarding the identification of risky buildings, the property was reported as risky. They requested and sued for a decision ordering the defendant insurance company to pay the insurance amount of 89,000.00 TL, along with legal interest accruing from September 26, 2019, the date of the earthquake. The defendant's attorney argued for the rejection of the application.
The Insurance Arbitration Board, based on the claims, defenses, the proceedings, and the evidence gathered, decided to reject the application as no causal link was established between the earthquake and the determination of the building as risky; the plaintiff's attorney appealed this decision.
The decision of the Insurance Appeals Arbitration Board to reject the appeal was appealed by the plaintiff's attorney.
The case concerns a claim for compensation arising from mandatory earthquake insurance contracts.
In the expert report; It was determined that the unwashed sea sand used caused the reinforcing steel in the building's load-bearing structure to rust over time, that the rusted reinforcement expanded in volume, causing the cover to crack, that there was no damage to the building's load-bearing system caused by the earthquake, but that there was corrosion-related damage, which would not be taken into consideration. It was stated that the reason for the building being considered a risky structure was the structural defects of the building, independent of the earthquake event. In the expert report obtained by the arbitration panel, it was not found that any event that made the building in which the insured residence is located "risky" as a result of the earthquake event was observed, it was not concluded that the situation in question was covered by the earthquake coverage of both the Fire Insurance and DASK policies, and it was reported that DASK and the insurance company had no additional responsibility beyond what they had determined and calculated.

The Arbitration Panel ruled that the risk to the property did not arise from the earthquake but from structural defects, and since no causal link was established between the earthquake and the determination of the risky building, the case was dismissed.
According to Articles 266 and subsequent articles of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, in cases requiring specialized or technical knowledge, the opinion and views of an expert witness shall be obtained.
Although the Arbitration Panel obtained an expert report regarding the defendant's liability, this report is insufficient for rendering a judgment.
In this situation, the Appeal Arbitration Panel should have appointed a new expert panel, including a Civil Engineer, a Geological Engineer, and an Insurance Lawyer, to evaluate the previously obtained expert reports and to determine whether the weakness of the load-bearing columns of the building in question (due to the use of unwashed sea sand) constitutes contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. This report should have been detailed, reasoned, and subject to review. The decision should have been made based on the findings of this report. The judgment rendered in writing, based on an incomplete examination, is deemed incorrect.