17 Apr Natural Disaster Insurance Agency-Compensation-Statute Of Limitations
17. Law Department 17. Legal Department
BASIS NO: 2017/1035 DECISION NO: 2019/9243
Attorney of the plaintiff, 23/10/2011 and 10/11/2011 Ercis earthquakes occurred on the house belonging to his client was severely damaged, the decision was made by the competent authorities to destroy this house on 27/12/2010 Ergo insurance A.P. he made earthquake insurance within his body, the area of the residence 168 m2 in the policy was shown as 59 m2, this situation was corrected with the addendum dated 19/11/2011, which was accepted as 168 m2 and the missing premiums were paid, so he demanded that the necessary payments be made as soon as possible.
Acting defendant, all claims arising from insurance contracts, previous Turkish Commercial Code 1268. article 1420 of the new Turkish Commercial Code. article and general conditions of earthquake insurance c.7. according to the article, it is subject to a two-year statute of limitations, the case was opened after the statute of limitations, the damage file was created after the earthquake dated 23/10/2011, payment was made according to the price determined in the evaluation report, but it was returned twice by the plaintiff, the plaintiff received the payment on 23/01/2013, the area of the apartment was added after the earthquake on 19/11/2011, the policy was created in accordance with the declarations, arguing that the case was rejected.
../…
– 2 –
2017/1035
2019/9243
By the court, the case is aimed at compensation for damage incurred under the “mandatory earthquake insurance policy”, the policy start date is 27/10/2010 and the end date is 27/12/2011, 1420 of the Turkish Commercial Code. the claims arising from insurance contracts in accordance with the 2-year limitation period end date is subject to the policy that is on the grounds that the case history with more than 2 years between Case dismissed due to the statute of limitations granted; judgment was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney within the time.
The case relates to a claim for compensation under a mandatory earthquake insurance policy.
The plaintiff’s residence was insured by the defendant with a policy dated 27/12/2010-2011, due to the lack of square meters of the residence in the policy, an addendum dated 19/11/2011 was issued over the actual square meters, earthquakes occurred on 23/10/2011 and 10/11/2011 during the policy maturity, after the first earthquake, the plaintiff notified the defendant’s insurance company on 09/11/2011, the plaintiff was paid 14,400,03 TL due to the damage, the payment was returned on 02/04/2012, it is understood that the amount returned was sent to the plaintiff again on 30/11/2012, returned to the institution again on 15/01/2013 after the plaintiff did not receive the payment, and on 23/01/2013 at the request of the plaintiff, the payment was paid to the plaintiff insured in accordance with the request, and the date of the case is 22/08/2014.
1420 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, which is in force as of the date of the risk. according to the article, all claims arising from the insurance contract shall expire after two years starting from the due date of receipt. General Conditions of mandatory earthquake insurance, which entered into force after being published on 13 00186 C.7 in the article entitled statute of limitations, it is stipulated that all claims arising from the insurance contract will expire in two years from the end of the contract.
133/1 of BC No. 818, which must be applied in terms of dispute subject to litigation. in the article, the debtor’s confession of his debt is considered among the reasons that break the statute of limitations. 135 Of The Same Law. in the article, it is arranged that if the statute of limitations is terminated, a new period from the date of termination will begin to be processed, and if the debt has been admitted with a promissory note or fixed with a provision, the new period will always be 10 years.
../…
– 3 –
2017/1035
2019/9243
Payment was made by the defendant on 16/02/2012 based on the damage notice made by the plaintiff based on the mandatory earthquake insurance between the parties. 133/1 of the BC, since this payment has been assumed (admitted) to pay the cost of the risk to the plaintiff. according to the article, due to the recognition of the debt, the statute of limitations was cut as of the date of payment and the new ten-year period began to be processed, and the 10-year statute of limitations that began to be processed as of the date of the case also did not expire.
Financial and legal facts that are described in the face of the court; defendant timeout due to payment made by the party, which began to function again is lost and a 10-year limitation period from the date of the lawsuit has had, considering the defendant to the plaintiff’s damage claim with the denial of burial to the statute of limitations and should be decided according to the results, while conducting the inspection, review and assessment incomplete yanilgili into the case with the statute of limitations had unprecedented decision due to the corruption and denial of provision.
Conclusion: for the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 10/10/2019 to return the advance fee to the appellant on request to overturn the provision with the acceptance of the appeal objections of the plaintiff’s attorney.
No Comments