17. Law Office 2016/11461 E. , 2019/7615 K.

“text of jurisprudence”

COURT : Court of First Instance

At the end of the trial held on the compensation case between the parties, the decision regarding the partial acceptance of the case was appealed by the defendant’s attorney for the reasons written in the Decrees, the file was examined, the necessity was considered:

-DECISION-

Fire insurance policy owned by the defendant to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s attorney is insured with the province were damaged by the earthquake that occurred in the workplace that the defendant paid for the damage to the commodity, by specifying in office buildings due to earthquake damage from the defendant without prejudice to the rights on the surplus that is responsible 20.700,00 TL defendant required to process from the date of commercial interest with the collection from the earthquake.
The defendant’s counsel, in the absence of Dask insurance, they are not liable for any damages, damages that exceed the price of the compulsory earthquake insurance limited insurance coverage for which they are responsible, as the policy is discretionary in nature and Dask earthquake coverage by staying within the limits of the plaintiff’s harm, the company would fall to their animosity, earthquake insurance and risks should be considered in the determination of the provision for the loss of the exemption by stating that the dismissal of the case is defended.
According to the claim, defense, trial and collected evidence, the court decided to collect 13,811.60 TL compensation from the defendant along with the commercial interest to be processed from 17.12.2011 with the partial acceptance of the case; the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
The case relates to a claim for compensation under the Fire Insurance Policy, which also includes earthquake coverage.
The party of the plaintiff by the defendant to the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the insured due to the earthquake owned independent section sued to demand compensation from the defendant; the court by the defendant, the plaintiff is given for the workplace are considered optional earthquake coverage policy held by the insured, optional insurance coverage is compulsory earthquake insurance policy for the workplace of the necessary information about earthquake it will be valid to the defendant’s insurer liable for damages that do not make the demand on the grounds that it was partly decided upon the adoption.
It is fixed that the claimant’s workplace does not have a DASK policy, as in the acceptance of both the parties and the court, by DASK’s reply dated 18.12.2012. With the 29.04.2011-29.04.2012 term Fire Insurance Policy issued by the defendant, the insured workplace is 26.550,00 TL. the building was insured with the cost and earthquake coverage was also provided in the policy; however, an additional statement that the insurer will be responsible for damage exceeding the DASK limit in terms of earthquake coverage was not included in the policy; only, an arrangement has been made that 20% joint insurance and 2% exemption will be applied in terms of earthquake coverage.
2 Entitled “scope” of the Decree Law No. 587 on Compulsory Earthquake Insurance in force as of the date of 29.04.2011, when the Fire Insurance Policy, including earthquake coverage, was issued by the defendant for the plaintiff’s workplace, and as of the date of the earthquake, entitled “coverage”. in the article “independent sections within the scope of Law No. 634 condominium, subject to private ownership on immovable property is registered in the land registry as a dwelling place built buildings, and commercial buildings located in the Office of the state due to natural disasters, with independent sections, and used for similar purposes, commissioned by, or given credit to the compulsory earthquake insurance of dwellings with is subject to regulation; the aforementioned Decree 9. on the other hand, the regulation “Compulsory earthquake insurance is taken out by the owners or usufruct holders, if any, for the independent departments and buildings covered by this Decree-Law” is included in the article.
According to decree law No. 587, those who are obliged to take out compulsory earthquake insurance and the structures where it is mandatory to take out this insurance have been clearly defined. The workplace belonging to the claimant is also among the structures that are required to have compulsory earthquake insurance under the Decrees. The only authorized institution to make Compulsory Earthquake Insurance is the non-litigation DASK; the defendant insurer does not have the right and authority to make compulsory earthquake insurance on its own behalf and account; considering that the policy issued by the defendant is a Fire Insurance Policy and that coverage is provided for many risks other than earthquakes within the scope of the policy, the court’s acceptance that the earthquake coverage in the defendant’s policy is of a discretionary nature is in place.
However, the compulsory earthquake insurance, under Decree No. 587 who was in charge of administering the plaintiff, the defendant will be responsible for Dask from harm in excess of the limit because it is not informed by the defendant, the right to claim your policy earthquake coverage is not going to win; that the plaintiff is liable without compulsory earthquake insurance in accordance with the legislation, however, the compulsory earthquake insurance in excess of the limit collateral damage from the defendant without considering the issues that will be held accountable, and the necessary research is done before you decided to be missing is in the nature of the review.
Material facts described in the face of legal and court; defendant of responsibility starting point, remaining above the compulsory earthquake insurance is the guarantee limit, taking into account that the damage of the earthquake by the earthquake to the workplace belongs to the plaintiff on the date of the compulsory earthquake insurance 23.10.2011 current conducting the necessary research in the detection of the guarantee limit, then the insured person according to free-market rates of office buildings in the seismic history with regard to how it will be the cost of rebuilding, another civil engineer, receiving expert expert’s report; the cost of damage to be fixed, if the defendant remains below the limit of guarantee Dask and Dask would fall to the animosity that in case of damage in excess of the limit of detection, limit damages in excess of the aforementioned part of the policy of insurance and exemption in accordance with the provisions to be determined by considering the amount the defendant can be held accountable at sentencing, while incomplete yanilgili review and assessment, required in a written format has to break at the provision.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on the day of 17/06/2019 to OVERTURN the verdict by accepting the defendant’s attorney’s appeals and to return the fee received in advance to the appellant defendant upon request.

You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.