Jurisdiction in Insurance Disputes: Commercial Court or Civil Court?

1) Why is the "mission" critical?

In insurance disputes, the first and most decisive hurdle is " jurisdiction ." This is because jurisdiction is considered a prerequisite for litigation related to public order ; it is observed ex officio by the court, and a lawsuit filed in the wrong court carries the risk of "lack of jurisdiction." Therefore, it is necessary to correctly establish the legal nature of the dispute from the outset (is it a commercial case, a consumer transaction, or another specific area of jurisdiction?).

In practice, within the same plot structure:

compensation claim arising from the policy ,
a claim for reimbursement (reimbursement) for the amount paid by the insurer .
a claim made by a third party (the injured party) to the insurer,
whether arbitration can be pursued

Multiple possibilities intertwine. Therefore, the question "Commercial Court of First Instance or Civil Court of First Instance?" is not answered with a single sentence; a step-by-step test .

2) Rule: Insurance disputes are often heard in the Commercial Court of First Instance as "commercial lawsuits"

While the scope of " commercial lawsuits " is defined in the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (TTK) , the following approach is practically adopted with regard to insurance relationships:

Insurance law is systematically regulated within the Turkish Commercial Code (particularly the insurance book and compulsory liability insurance).
Therefore, "cases arising from matters regulated in the Turkish Commercial Code" are, in most cases, considered absolute commercial cases and fall within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court of First Instance

Article 4 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) clearly defines and outlines the scope of commercial cases (with particular emphasis on marine insurance), while Article 5 states that "the jurisdiction to hear commercial cases belongs to the primary commercial court.".

Article 5/1 of the Turkish establishes the fundamental clause: "Unless otherwise stipulated, the primary commercial court is responsible for hearing all commercial cases."

3) However: "If there is no Commercial Court of First Instance," the Civil Court of First Instance will handle cases in its capacity as a commercial court

The most common mistake in the field is this: "There is no Commercial Court of First Instance in the district; therefore, the Civil Court of First Instance is responsible," but the reason is explained incorrectly.

Correct expression:

The dispute commercial nature.
However, if there is no Commercial Court of First Instance within the judicial district, the Civil Court of First Instance will hear the case in the capacity of a commercial court.

Article 5/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) emphasizes that the relationship between the Commercial Court of First Instance and the Civil Court of First Instance is no longer a "division of labor" but a jurisdictional relationship . Furthermore, the same article stipulates that in locations where a Commercial Court of First Instance exists, cases deemed commercial under Article 4 of the TTK shall be heard in that court; indeed, specialization may be permitted for maritime trade/marine insurance cases.

4) The key distinction that resolves the question of "Civil Court of First Instance or Commercial Court of First Instance?" is: a commercial case or a consumer transaction ?

The key factor here is the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 (TKHK).

Article 3 of the Consumer Protection Law explicitly includes insurance contracts in the definition of "consumer transaction" : "Contracts for works, transportation, brokerage, insurance , agency, banking, etc. ... are within the scope of consumer transactions."

Article 73 of the consumer courts have jurisdiction in "disputes arising from consumer transactions.

Conclusion: If the dispute arises from a consumer transaction, the dilemma of "Commercial Court of First Instance / Civil Court of First Instance?" is often the wrong dilemma; the correct address the Consumer Court(or the Civil Court of First Instance acting as a consumer court if there is no consumer court).

Therefore, when identifying a task, you should first ask this question:

Did the policyholder/insured/beneficiary enter into this contract for commercial/professional purposes or for personal (consumer) purposes?

for consumer purposes : the jurisdiction usually falls under the Consumer Court.
for commercial/professional purposes (e.g., company insurance, commercial vehicle, commercial activity): the dispute is usually a commercial lawsuit in the Civil Commercial Court.

5) Practical task map according to conflict types

The following headings classify the most common scenarios in practice by task.

A) Disputes between policy parties (insured/beneficiary ↔ insurer)

Examples:

Damage cost in car/home/business insurance policy,
termination/cancellation of the policy,
bonus payment
claim of non-coverage
Underpayment of compensation.

Rule:

If the insured/beneficiary is a "consumer": Consumer Court (or Civil Court of First Instance – in the capacity of a consumer).
If the insured/beneficiary is acting for commercial/professional purposes: mostly Commercial Law (Turkish Commercial Code, Articles 4-5).

In practice, the approach that insurance contracts are considered consumer transactions and that the matter belongs to the consumer court is clearly seen in case law examples: the assessment that "insurance contracts are consumer transactions within the scope of Law No. 6502... the dispute should be resolved by the consumer court" reflects this line.

B) Compulsory Motor Insurance (ZMSS) and claims made by third parties to the insurer

There are two layers in this area:

The injured third party sues the insurer directly.
The insurer has the right to seek recourse from the insured or the driver for the amount paid, based on policy relationship/legal recourse reasons .

Regarding the second layer (recourse), the Supreme Court's decision texts of the Commercial Court of First Instance ." Indeed, in a sample jurisdictional dispute, the Commercial Court of First Instance was determined as the competent court in a recourse case filed by a compulsory financial liability insurer, citing Articles 4-5 of the Turkish Commercial Code and insurance provisions.

Practical advice: In traffic accident cases, a distinction should be made between "is an insurance company among the defendants?" and "is the claim directly based on the policy or on tort?"; especially directed at the insurer or where the insurer seeks recourse, you should definitely apply the commercial litigation/consumer transaction test.

C) Insurer's subrogation claims (insurer → recourse against the party causing the damage)

After paying its insured, the insurer subrogation and recourse mechanisms. In this scenario, the source of the dispute is often the insurance payment relationship plus the right of recourse; the "consumer transaction or commercial lawsuit?" test becomes crucial in determining jurisdiction. In practical examples (e.g., recourse against the manufacturer/service provider alleged to have caused a fire after a home insurance policy), this distinction is often debated.

6) "Could the Civil Court of First Instance actually have jurisdiction?"

Yes; but usually for two reasons:

In places where there is no Commercial Court of First Instance: the Civil Court of First Instance handles commercial cases in its capacity as a commercial court.
In places where there is no Consumer Court: the Civil Court of First Instance handles consumer disputes in the capacity of a consumer court (as per Article 73 of the Consumer Protection Law).

Furthermore, if the dispute deviates from the "core" of the insurance relationship and falls into a completely different, specialized field (e.g., labor court, administrative court, etc.), it requires separate evaluation; however, in the context of your question, the most frequently encountered grounds for appeal in "Civil Court" are the two headings mentioned above.

7) Alternative route: Insurance Arbitration (Insurance Arbitration Commission)

In insurance disputes, the question of "court or arbitration?" is as strategic as the task itself for most cases.

Article 30 of the Insurance Law No. 5684 arbitration system and application framework in insurance; the "Commission," "insurance arbitration," and the application/review mechanism find their normative basis in this article.

In this context, the Insurance Arbitration Commission, in particular:

The need for quick results,
management of expert witness processes,
a more predictable time schedule,

It may be preferred for reasons such as these. However, arbitration may not be possible/suitable in every case; the type of policy, the roles of the parties, and the scope of the dispute should be examined separately.

8) Warning about "mandatory mediation in commercial disputes" (directly affects insurance cases)

If the insurance dispute is considered a "commercial lawsuit" and the subject matter is a claim for "a sum of money" such as receivables/compensation, then applying to a mediator may be a prerequisite for filing a lawsuit, in accordance with Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code.

This point is the "first point of contact" in many insurance cases, such as insurance compensation, recourse claims, and annulment of objections. When determining jurisdiction, it is critical, from the perspective of procedural efficiency, to also check whether mandatory mediation is required as a prerequisite for litigation

9) Quick decision tree: Which court will your case go to?

The following flow usually leads to the correct result in most cases:

Is there a contract?
- Is it a policy relationship (insurer-insured/beneficiary)?
- Or is it a claim made directly to the insurer by a third party?
Consumer testing (Article 3 of the Consumer Protection Law):
- Insured/beneficiary is a natural person and there is no commercial/professional purpose → consumer transaction
- Commercial/professional purpose, company policy, commercial activity → not a consumer
Task result:
- Consumer case → Consumer Court (or Civil Court of First Instance – as a consumer)
- Commercial lawsuit (Turkish Commercial Code Article 4) → Primary Commercial Court
- If there is no Commercial Court → Civil Court, in the capacity of a commercial court
Additional check:
- In commercial monetary claims/compensation, mediation may be a prerequisite for filing a lawsuit (Turkish Commercial Code, Article 5/A).
- Is arbitration (Article 30 of the Insurance Law) appropriate for this case?

In insurance disputes, the correct answer to the question "Commercial Court of First Instance or Civil Court of First Instance?" is often not the name of a single court, but rather a jurisdictional regime that varies according to the nature of the dispute.

If the insurance relationship constitutes a commercial lawsuit , the Commercial Court of First Instance generally has jurisdiction.
In places where there is no Commercial Court of First Instance, the Civil Court of First Instance handles commercial cases .
If the insurance contract was established for consumer purposes, the dispute a consumer transaction , and jurisdiction the Consumer Court.
Insurance arbitration , as an alternative solution , is an effective method with a legal basis.

#Receivables, civil law, jurisdiction, law, compensation, Consumer Court, dispute

Law Articles

Jurisdiction in Insurance Disputes: Commercial Court or Civil Court?