17. Legal Department 17. law office
BASE NO: 2017/1035 DECISION NO: 2019/9243
plaintiff’s Attorney , Ergo Sigorta A. On 27/12/2010, Ergo Sigorta A., this residence was decided to demolish by the competent authorities, that the residence belonging to his client was severely damaged in the Erciş earthquakes that occurred on 23/10/2011 and 10/11/2011.Sh. he claimed that he had earthquake insurance on site, that the area of the residence, which is 168 m2, was shown as 59 m2 in the policy, that this situation was corrected with the addendum dated 19/11/2011, that missing premiums were paid by accepting it as 168 m2, so the necessary payments were made as soon as possible.
The respondent’s representative stated that all claims arising from insurance contracts are subject to the provisions of the previous TCC 1268. article 1420 of the new TCC. article c of the General Conditions of Earthquake Insurance.7. in accordance with the two-year limitation period that is subject to the case opened after the statute of limitations period, dated 23/10/2011 post-earthquake damage file was created, was paid according to the cost of the appraisal identified in the report however, if the party is returned twice by the plaintiff if the plaintiff’s payment process annex the area of a circle that has taken on 23/01/2013 after the earthquake, according to the declaration of the policy that was done on 19/11/2011 has been created to be given the decision of the case by arguing that the denial of requested.
../…
– 2 –
2017/1035
2019/9243
According to the court, the case is aimed at compensation for damage suffered under the “compulsory earthquake insurance policy”, the start date of the policy 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 is related to the claim for compensation in accordance with the compulsory earthquake insurance policy.
27/12/2010 of the house that belongs to the plaintiff by the defendant-insured with a policy that is where it is dated 2011, housing policy in the demonstration because of the missing square meters with over square meters of real 19/11/2011 dated addendum is issued, and earthquakes in history occurred when 10/11/2011 23/10/2011 within the policy term, in the aftermath of the first earthquake by the plaintiff, the defendant insurance company to report the damage has been made on 09/11/2011 that, due to damage to the plaintiff 14.400,03 TL payment is made where, on the date of payment retured 02/04/2012, it is understood that the refund amount was sent to the plaintiff again on 30/11/2012, after the plaintiff did not receive the payment, it was returned to the institution again on 15/01/2013, and on 23/01/2013 at the plaintiff’s request, the payment was paid to the plaintiff’s insured in accordance with the claim, and the date of the claim was 22/08/2014.
Article 1420 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, which is in force as of the date of occurrence of the risk. in accordance with the article, all claims arising from the insurance contract are subject to a time limit of two years, starting from the date when the receivable is due. C of the General Conditions of Compulsory Earthquake Insurance, which were published on 13/05/2011 and entered into force.7 In the article entitled Statute of Limitations, it is also stipulated that all claims arising from the insurance contract will expire within two years from the expiration of the contract.
133/1 of BK No. 818, which must be applied in terms of the dispute subject to litigation. in its article, the borrower’s confession of his debt is considered to be one of the reasons that decoupled the statute of limitations. 135 of the Same Law. in its article, it is stated that if the statute of limitations is exceeded, a new period will begin to operate from the date of expiration, and if the debt has been admitted with a promissory note or fixed by a provision, the new period will always be 10 years.
../…
– 3 –
2017/1035
2019/9243
Payment was made by the respondent on Dec. 02/16/2012 in accordance with the damage notification made by the plaintiff based on the compulsory earthquake insurance between the parties. Since the payment of the risk related to this payment to the plaintiff has been assumed (confessed), see 133/1. in accordance with the article, the statute of limitations has been cut as of the date of payment due to the debt, and the new ten-year period has started to function, and the 10-year statute of limitations that has just started to function as of the date of the lawsuit has not expired.
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 that the fee received in advance should be returned to the appellant upon request, if the provision was OVERTURNED by accepting the appeals of the plaintiff’s deputy.
