RECOURSE COMPENSATION IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
Traffic accidents give rise to many different legal liabilities and compensation claims. In this context, recourse claims are one of the important legal processes faced by insurance companies and the parties involved in the accident. Recourse means that a person seeks to recover the amount of compensation they paid from the actual responsible party(ies). In traffic accidents, these types of compensation claims are evaluated within the framework of insurance law and general compensation law rules.
Legal Basis for Recourse Compensation
Claims for recourse damages are based on the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) and the Highway Traffic Law (KTK). These laws contain regulations aimed at recovering damages from the actual perpetrators.
Legal Basis for Recourse Compensation
Claims for recourse damages are based on the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) and the Highway Traffic Law (KTK). These laws contain regulations aimed at recovering damages from the actual perpetrators.
- Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK):
- Article 49: “A person who causes harm to another through a culpable and unlawful act is obliged to compensate for that harm.”
- Article 51: “The expenses of measures taken by the injured party to reduce or remedy the damage shall be borne by the perpetrator of the damage.”
- Highway Traffic Law (HTK):
- Article 85: “If the operation of a motor vehicle causes death or injury to a person or damage to property, the operator of the motor vehicle and the owner of the enterprise to which it belongs shall be jointly and severally liable for the resulting damage.”
- Article 91: “The insurer’s liability for damages is limited to the operator’s liability for damages. However, after the insurer has compensated the operator for damages caused by the operator’s fault, it may seek recourse against the negligent operator.”
Areas of Application of Recourse Compensation
- Insurance Companies' Right of Recourse: Under mandatory traffic insurance, after covering the damages of the accident victim, the insurance company can seek recourse against the driver or operator who caused the accident through their fault. This protects the insurance companies' right to recover their losses from the actual responsible parties.
- Right of Recourse for Vehicle Owners and Operators: Vehicle owners or operators may claim compensation from the negligent driver for payments they have made to third parties due to the driver's fault.
Supreme Court Case Law
- Supreme Court 17th Civil Chamber Decision: “After compensating the injured party for their losses, the insurance company has the right to seek recourse against the driver or operator who caused the accident through their fault. This right is limited to the amount of compensation paid by the insurance company.”
- Supreme Court 4th Civil Chamber Decision: “The vehicle owner or operator may seek recourse for the compensation paid to the driver who negligently caused an accident with their vehicle. In this case, the decision in the recourse lawsuit is made taking into account the determination of fault and the amount of payment.”
- Supreme Court of Appeals, General Assembly of Civil Law Decision: “The insurance company's right of recourse applies only to compensation paid under the policy. There can be no right of recourse for damages outside the scope of the insurance policy.”
Subrogation claims in traffic accidents are an important legal mechanism that allows insurance companies and vehicle owners to recover their losses from the actual culprits. In such cases, acting in accordance with legal provisions and Supreme Court precedents ensures that legal processes are conducted correctly and fairly. Proper management of subrogation claims is critical for protecting the rights of the parties and ensuring legal security. Therefore, all parties involved in traffic accidents should be informed about subrogation claims and meticulously follow the legal processes.
Evidence and Proof in Recourse Claims
In recourse claims, the burden of proof and evidence is of paramount importance. In such cases, the party seeking recourse is obligated to prove the justification and amount of the compensation paid, as well as the fault of the party against whom recourse is sought.
- How the Accident Occurred: How a traffic accident occurred, who was at fault, is proven through on-site investigations, witness statements, and expert reports.
- Amount of Compensation: The amount of compensation paid must be proven with documentation (court decision, insurance payment documents, etc.).
- Fault Determination: Fault is determined through expert reports and court decisions. In this context, the degree of fault of the parties involved in the accident is examined in detail.
Calculation of Recourse Compensation
In calculating recourse compensation, the amount of the payment and the damages suffered by the injured party are taken into account. Insurance companies and vehicle owners can only seek recourse for the amount of compensation they have paid. Insurance policy limits and court decisions are considered when making this calculation.
Insurance Policy Limits: Insurance companies pay compensation within the limits specified in the policy. These limits are also taken into account in subrogation claims. For example, if the compensation limit specified in a mandatory traffic insurance policy is exceeded, the insurance company cannot claim recourse for the excess amount.
Court Decisions: The amount of compensation awarded by the court forms the basis of the recourse claim. The amount of compensation determined in the court decision is used as the basis for calculating the amount to be recouped.
17th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2016/19536 E., Decision No. 2019/8782 K.
"Case Law Text"
COURT: Civil Court of First Instance
Between the parties return compensation Following the trial of the case, and upon the appeal filed by the defendant's attorney within the prescribed time limit against the judgment accepting the case for the reasons stated in the decision, the file was examined and the necessary considerations were made:
- DECISION -
The plaintiff's attorney stated that their client, the insurance company.. traffic accident caused by a third party driving a vehicle belonging to the defendant, whose insurance company it represents, without a driver's license traffic In the accident, upon application by the plaintiff, the injured party's heirs were deprived of support compensation the payment was made, since the payment made was outside the scope of the policy coverage, from the defendant return The court determined the value of the amount subject to the fee for the collection proceedings as 25,293.50 TL, requested the annulment of the defendant's unjustified objection, the continuation of the proceedings, and the imposition of a fee of no less than 20% on the enforcement denial compensation He requested that he be held responsible.
The defendant's attorney raised objections regarding jurisdiction and the statute of limitations, arguing that the plaintiff should prove that their client did not act in bad faith, and requested that the case be dismissed.
Based on the claims, defenses, and evidence gathered, the court ruled to accept the case, annul the defendant's objection to the Istanbul 33rd Enforcement Office's file numbered 2012/28144, and impose an enforcement order against the defendant amounting to 20% of the principal debt compensation The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff; the judgment was appealed by the defendant's attorney.
1-Based on the information and documents in the file, and the fact that there is no procedural or legal irregularity in the discussion and evaluation of the evidence relied upon in the reasoning of the court decision, it is necessary to decide to reject the other appeals of the defendant’s attorney, except for the following paragraphs (2) and (3).
2- The lawsuit concerns a payment made to a third party not involved in the lawsuit traffic the amount paid by the insurer to the defendant insured pursuant to Article 95 of the Turkish Road Traffic Law and the Compulsory Motor Insurance Policy and Compulsory Motor Insurance General Terms and Conditions return It relates to the request for collection.
The plaintiff insurer sued its defendant insured on the grounds that the accident occurred while the vehicle insured under the ZMSS policy was being driven and controlled by an unlicensed driver return compensation A lawsuit was filed with this request. The court, based on the grounds given by the plaintiff for recourse, traffic According to the accident report prepared regarding the accident, it is seen that the plaintiff's claim was accepted with an incomplete investigation, without determining the degree of fault of the driver of the vehicle not involved in the accident. A judgment cannot be made with an incomplete investigation.
Article 95 of the Turkish Road Traffic Law states that "Insurance rights arising from insurance contracts or legal provisions relating to insurance contracts and compensation Circumstances resulting in the cancellation or reduction of the obligation cannot be invoked against the injured party. The insurer who made the payment shall, in accordance with the insurance contract and the legal provisions relating to this contract, compensation Article B.4.b of the General Terms and Conditions of Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance states that "the insured may apply to the policyholder to the extent that it can ensure the removal or reduction of the liability." compensation the event requiring the vehicle to be registered on the Highways Traffic According to the law, if an accident occurs as a result of the vehicle being driven by someone who does not possess the required license, the insurer may seek recourse against the operator in proportion to the degree of fault.
In accordance with the aforementioned regulations, and taking into consideration that the plaintiff's right of recourse arises in proportion to the fault of the defendant insured's vehicle driver in the accident; the subject of the lawsuit.. traffic After investigating the driver's license status of the driver operating the vehicle at the time of the accident, and obtaining a detailed, reasoned, and verifiable expert report from a mechanical engineer specializing in this area regarding the defendant driver's degree of fault in the accident, a detailed and reasoned expert report from an actuarial expert regarding the claim subject to recourse will be obtained
While a decision should have been made based on the findings of an auditable financial report, rendering a judgment based on an incomplete investigation is deemed incorrect.
3- According to the acceptance, the request made by the plaintiff.. compensation The amount is not fixed (definite), and determining the actual amount of damage requires a trial and expert examination. Therefore, the plaintiff's denial of execution is not conditional upon the court proceedings compensation While the request should have been rejected, the defendant was denial of execution as written compensation It is also incorrect to make such a decision.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above, the other appeal objections of the defendant's attorney are REJECTED, for the reasons explained in paragraphs (2) and (3), the appeal objections of the defendant's attorney are ACCEPTED and the judgment is REVERSED, and the advance fee paid is to be returned to the appealing defendant upon request. This decision was made unanimously on 01/10/2019.
Law Intern Student
Behiye Zeynep Ozturk
About Post Author
