Evaluation of Applications to the Insurance Arbitration Commission with the Claim of Increased Degree of  Incapacity for Work Under the Rule “No Application Can Be Made to the Commission Regarding Disputes  Referred to the Court” (Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law)

Köle, Mehmet

doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008

Research Article

DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008 IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008 Full Text (PDF)

Evaluation of Applications to the Insurance Arbitration Commission with the Claim of Increased Degree of Incapacity for Work Under the Rule “No Application Can Be Made to the Commission Regarding Disputes Referred to the Court” (Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law)

According to Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law (IL) No. 5684, applications cannot be made to the Insurance Arbitration Commission regarding disputes referred to courts or consumer arbitration committees. This provision of the Insurance Law can be linked to pendency and res judicata, among the negative litigation conditions regulated in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) No. 6100. However, the exact scope of the rule is not fully clear from its wording. In some of its decisions, the Court of Cassation has not limited the application of this rule to the pendency or res judicata. The practice of the Court of Cassation in this direction has also been observed in some of its decisions concerning the applications made to the Commission by a person whose action for damages based on incapacity against the insurer in the state court was concluded, claiming that the degree of incapacity for work has subsequently increased. The Court of Cassation, which considers it possible to file a new lawsuit for the compensation of damages linked to an increase in the degree of incapacity, has adopted the view in some of its recent decisions that no application can be made to the Insurance Arbitration Commission for this second lawsuit, citing Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law. This study evaluates the scope of the rule in Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law and the view of the Court of Cassation.

Keywords: Insurance Arbitration Commission, Incapacity for Work, Increase in the Degree of Incapacity for Work, Lis Pendens, Res Judicata, Compulsory Traffic Insurance

DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008 IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008 Full Text (PDF)

İş Göremezlik Oranının Arttığı İddiasıyla Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonuna Yapılan Başvuruların ‘‘Mahkemeye İntikal Etmiş Uyuşmazlıklarla İlgili Olarak Komisyona Başvuru Yapılamaz’’ Kuralı (SK m 30/14) Çerçevesinde Değerlendirilmesi

Mehmet Köle

5684 sayılı Sigortacılık Kanunu (SK) m 30/14’e göre, mahkemeye veya tüketici hakem heyetine intikal etmiş uyuşmazlıklar ile ilgili olarak Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonuna başvuru yapılamaz. Sigortacılık Kanunu’nda öngörülen bu hükmün, 6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nda (HMK) düzenlenen olumsuz dava şartlarından derdestlik ve kesin hüküm ile ilişkilendirilmesi mümkündür. Ancak hükmün hangi hâllerde uygulama alanı bulacağı lafzından tam olarak anlaşılmamaktadır. Yargıtay bazı kararlarında bu hükmün uygulama alanını, mahkemede daha önce açılan aynı davanın hâlen derdest veya kesin hükme bağlanmış olması hâliyle sınırlandırmamıştır. Yüksek Mahkemenin bu doğrultudaki uygulamasına, iş göremezliğe bağlı zararının tazmini için sigortacıya karşı devlet mahkemesinde açtığı tazminat davası neticelenen kişinin, daha sonra iş göremezlik oranının arttığı iddiasıyla Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonuna yaptığı başvurulara ilişkin verdiği bazı kararlarında da rastlanılmaktadır. Artan iş göremezliğe bağlı olarak ortaya çıkan zararın tazmini için yeni bir dava açılmasını mümkün gören Yargıtay, yakın tarihli bazı kararlarında Sigortacılık Kanunu m 30/14 hükmünü gerekçe göstererek bu ikinci dava için Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonuna başvurulamayacağı görüşünü benimsemiştir. Bu çalışmada Sigortacılık Kanunu m 30/14’te öngörülen kuralın kapsamı ve Yargıtayın bu görüşünün isabetli olup olmadığı değerlendirilmektedir.

Keywords: Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu, İş Göremezlik, İş Göremezlik Oranında Artış, Derdestlik, Kesin Hüküm, Zorunlu Trafik Sigortası

EXTENDED ABSTRACT

In cases where a person suffers partial or total permanent incapacity for work due to a tort or contractual breach, he/she may bring an action for compensation against the insurance company whose liability arises because of the damage due to this incapacity. For this purpose, the injured person can apply to the state court or the Insurance Arbitration Commission (for voluntary insurances, provided that the relevant insurer is a member of the insurance arbitration system; for compulsory insurances, membership is not required). The person who has exercised his/her right of choice in favour of filing a lawsuit in the state court may experience a progression in the effect of the damaging incident and a consequent increase in the degree of incapacity after the conclusion of the lawsuit.

At this point, the question arises as to whether the injured party, who had previously obtained a judgment from the state court concerning the same incident, still has the option to choose between state jurisdiction and the Insurance Arbitration Commission in respect of a new case based on the increase in incapacity. Because in Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law, it is accepted that no application can be made to the Commission regarding disputes submitted to the court. This study mainly aims to address this issue.

In this context, firstly, the issue of whether the negative effect of res judicata [Article 114/1 (i) of the CPC] arising as a result of the first lawsuit will constitute an obstacle to the examination of the second lawsuit to be filed with the claim that the degree of incapacity has increased is examined. It has been determined that the Court of Cassation has adopted the view that if there is an increase in the degree of disability of the injured person due to an evolving situation, a new lawsuit can be filed for compensation of the damage linked to this reason. In other words, the Court of Cassation accepts that there is a difference in terms of cause and subject matter of the case between the compensation case filed based on the evolving situation and the compensation case previously filed and concluded regarding the same damaging incident.

This study then examines the scope of the rule in Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law. It is possible to associate the aforementioned rule with pendency and res judicata, among the negative litigation conditions regulated in the CPC. However, in Article 30/14, instead of the concept of pendency or res judicata, a phrase unusual for our civil procedure law terminology and whose scope is uncertain (the dispute has been submitted to the court) has been used. This phrase raises doubts about the cases in which this rule will be applied.

Until the end of 2022, the Court of Cassation had interpreted the aforementioned rule in parallel with the pendency and res judicata. However, it has been determined that the Court of Cassation’s approach to the scope of application of the Insurance Law Article 30/14 has tended to change since late 2022 and has begun to interpret the field of application of the provision more broadly.

This tendency of the Court of Cassation was also determined in our subject of examination. Because until late 2022, the Court of Cassation considered it permissible to apply to the Commission for compensation of damages linked to an increased degree of incapacity due to an evolving situation. However, some more recent decisions have concluded that such applications should be rejected under Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law.

In our opinion, Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law, as a rule, can be applied in cases where a previously filed lawsuit with the same parties, cause and subject matter is still pending in the state court or where the negative effect of the res judicata exists. Accordingly, if it is accepted that the lawsuit filed for compensation for damages linked to the increased incapacity due to an evolving situation is different in terms of cause and subject matter from the first compensation lawsuit filed and decided by the state court, it should be possible to file a second lawsuit by applying to the Commission. In fact, in this situation, the dispute previously examined in the court differs from the dispute to be examined by the insurance arbitrators, and no prior dispute regarding compensation for damages linked to increased incapacity for work has been referred to the court. In addition, after it is deemed possible to file a new lawsuit for compensation for the damage linked to an increased degree of incapacity, there is no interest to be protected in not accepting that this case can be filed by applying to the Insurance Arbitration Commission.

References

Akkanat H, Atalı M ve Seven V, Yargıtay Kararlarında Sigorta Tahkimi (Yetkin 2022). google scholar
Akkanat Öztürk EB, ‘Sorumluluk Sigortalarında Zarar Görenin Doğrudan Dava Hakkı’ (2020) 11 (42) TAAD 471-497. google scholar
Alangoya Y, Medenî Usul Hukukumuzda Tahkimin Niteliği ve Denetlenmesi (Fakülteler Matbaası 1973). google scholar
Alsancak Mİ, Trafik Kazası Sonucu Oluşan Bedensel Zararlar (3. Baskı, Seçkin 2024). google scholar
Atalı M, Ermenek İ ve Erdoğan E, Medenî Usûl Hukuku (7. Bası, Yetkin 2024). google scholar
Ayhan R, Çağlar H ve Özdamar M, Sigorta Hukuku (6. Baskı, Yetkin 2023). google scholar
Beggi YE, Sigorta Hukukundan Kaynaklanan Uyuşmazlıkların Sigorta Tahkim Komisyonu Nezdinde Çözümlenmesi (Platon 2023). google scholar
Budak AC, ‘Sigortacılıkta Tahkim: Sigortacılık Kanunu’nun 30. Maddesi, HMK’nun Yürürlüğe Girmesi ve 6327 Sayılı Kanun Değişikliğinden Sonra Nasıl Yorumlanmalıdır?’ (2013) 2 (2) Uluslararası Ticaret ve Tahkim Hukuku Dergisi 53-69. google scholar
Çelik NH, ‘Tazminat Hükmünün Değiştirilmesi’ iç Turgut Öz, Faruk Acar, Emre Gökyayla ve H. Murat Develioğlu (edr), İstanbul Şerhi Türk Borçlar Kanunu-Yürürlük Kanunu C. 1 (Madde 1-82) (3. Bası, Vedat 2019). google scholar
Dırenisa E, ‘Sigortacıya Dava Açmadan Önce Yazılı Başvuruda Bulunulması Zorunluluğunun (KTK m. 97) Medenî Usûl Hukuku Yönüyle Değerlendirilmesi’ (2023) 81 (3) İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 645-673. google scholar
Gal J, ‘The German Insurance Ombudsman System’ Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems Regarding Private Insurance (Sigorta Hukuku Türk Derneği 2014). google scholar
Gökyayla E, ‘Ölüm ve Bedensel Zarar’ iç Turgut Öz, Faruk Acar, Emre Gökyayla ve H. Murat Develioğlu (edr), İstanbul Şerhi Türk Borçlar Kanunu-Yürürlük Kanunu C. 1 (Madde 1-82) (3. Bası, Vedat 2019). google scholar
Gürtler F, ‘VomVO’ iç Beate Gsell ve Caroline Meller-Hannich (edr), Beck’sche Online-Kommentare Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) (6. Edition, C. H. Beck 2023). google scholar
İzgi MF, Türk Hukukunda Tahkim Benzeri Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Yolları (On İki Levha 2023). google scholar
Kabukçuoğlu Özer FD, Sigortacılık Kanunu Şerhi (On İki Levha 2012). google scholar
Karasu R, ‘Sigorta Hukuku Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümünde Tahkim’ iç Metin Kıratlı, Hakkı Susmaz, A. Eda Manav Özdemir, Açelya Şahin, Güray Özsu (edr), Tahkim ve Diğer Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Yöntemlerinde Güncel Gelişmeler Sempozyum Kitabı (2-3 Şubat 2023) (Cumhurbaşkanlığı 2023) 203-234. google scholar
Karasu R, ‘Sigorta Tahkimi ile İlgili Güncel Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri’ (2016) 7 (26) TAAD 49-69. google scholar
Kayıhan Ş ve Selanik AA, Sigorta Hukukunda Alternatif Çözüm Yolları ve Tahkim Usulü (3. Baskı, Seçkin 2024). google scholar
Kazmaz Tepe B, Medenî Usûl Hukukunda Beden Bütünlüğünün İhlâlinden Doğan Tazminat Davaları (Adalet 2022). google scholar
Kırtıloğlu SS, Medeni Yargılama Hukukunda Değişiklik Davası (Adalet 2014). google scholar
Kurt Konca N, ‘Sigorta Uyuşmazlıklarının Tahkim Yoluyla Çözümü’ Prof. Dr. Fırat Öztan’a Armağan C. I (Turhan 2010) 1343-1365. google scholar
Nomer HN, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler (20. Bası, Beta 2024) (Borçlar Hukuku). google scholar
Nomer HN, Haksız Fiil Sorumluluğunda Maddî Tazminatın Belirlenmesi (Beta 1996). google scholar
Oğuzman MK ve Öz MT, Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler C. 2 (19. Bası, Vedat 2024). google scholar
Özarslan A, ‘Sigorta Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümünde ve Özellikle Arabuluculuk Yolunda Bilirkişilik ve Uzman Görüşleri’ iç Kemal Şenocak (ed.), Sigorta Hukukunda Uzman Arabuluculuk (Adalet Bakanlığı Hukuk İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü Arabuluculuk Daire Başkanlığı 2021). google scholar
Özdamar M, ‘Sigorta Hukukunda Uyuşmazlıkların Çözümünde Tahkim Sistemi’ (2013) 17 (1-2) Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (Prof. Dr. Oğuz Kürşat Ünal’a Armağan) 831-855. google scholar
Özdamar M, ‘Alman Hukukunda Sigorta Ombudsmanlığı’ (2008) 24 (3) BATİDER 309-328. google scholar
Parlak FT, Sigorta Tahkim Yargılaması (2. Baskı, Seçkin 2024). google scholar
Römer W, ‘Offene und beantwortete Fragen zum Verfahren vor dem Ombudsmann’ (2002) 5 (7) NVersZ 289-293. google scholar
Sarıbaş G, ‘Sigortacılıkta Tahkim’ (2021) 16 (179) Terazi Hukuk Dergisi 1354-1360. google scholar
Scherpe JM, ‘Der deutsche Versicherungsombudsmann’ (2002) 5 (3) NVersZ 97-102. google scholar
Seven V, ‘Sigortacılıkta Tahkimde Uyuşmazlığın Mahkemeye veya Tüketici Sorunları Hakem Heyetine İntikal Etmemiş Olması Şartının Değerlendirilmesi’ (Lexpera Blog, 26 Şubat 2024), Erişim Tarihi 4 Ekim 2024 (İntikal). google scholar
Seven V, ‘Mahkemeye-Tahkime Başvurmadan Önce Sigorta Şirketine Başvuru Zorunluluğu’ (2018), 83 (2) 95-129. google scholar
Sopacı Öztuna B: ‘Türk ve Alman Hukukunda Yeni Düzenlemeler Işığında Sorumluluk Sigortasında Doğrudan Talep Hakkı’ (2011) 27 (2) BATİDER 15-50. google scholar
Tanrıver S, Medenî Usûl Hukuku C. I (5. Bası, Yetkin 2024). google scholar
Tanrıver S, Medenî Usul Hukukunda Derdestlik İtirazı (2. Baskı, Adalet 2007). google scholar
Tekinay SS, Akman S, Burcuoğlu H ve Altop A, Tekinay Borçlar Hukuku Genel Hükümler (7. Bası, Filiz 1993). google scholar
Tuztaş H, Bedensel Zararlar ve Tazminat Davaları (Yetkin 2024). google scholar
v. Rintelen C, ‘§ 23. Prozessuale Typizitaten und Besonderheiten sowie auBergerichtliche Streitbeilegung’ iç Roland Michael Beckmann ve Annemarie Matusche-Beckmann (edr), Versicherungsrechts-Handbuch (3. Auflage, C. H. Beck 2015). google scholar
Wagner G, ‘Bindung des Schiedsgerichts an Entscheidungen anderer Gerichte und Schiedsgerichte’ iç Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Klaus Peter Berger ve Jens Bredow (edr), Die Beteiligung Dritter an Schiedsverfahren (Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Instituts für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Band 16) (Carl Heymanns 2005) 7-53. google scholar
Yeşilova Aras E, Sorumluluk Sigortalarında Zarar Görenin Doğrudan Dava Hakkı (TTK m. 1478) (Yetkin 2013). google scholar
Yeşilova Aras E ve Yeşilova B, ‘Sigortacılık Tahkimi-Sigorta Tahkim Usulü ve Ayırdedici Özellikleri’ (2013) 8 (Özel Sayı) Yaşar Üniversitesi Elektronik Dergisi (E-Journal of Yasar University) (Prof. Dr. Aydın Zevkliler’e Armağan C. I) 275-379. google scholar
https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/ google scholar
https://legalbank.net/ google scholar
https://www.lexpera.com.tr/ google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format

EXPORT

APA

Köle, M. (2025). Evaluation of Applications to the Insurance Arbitration Commission with the Claim of Increased Degree of Incapacity for Work Under the Rule “No Application Can Be Made to the Commission Regarding Disputes Referred to the Court” (Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law). Istanbul Law Review, 83(1), 97-119. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008

AMA

Köle M. Evaluation of Applications to the Insurance Arbitration Commission with the Claim of Increased Degree of Incapacity for Work Under the Rule “No Application Can Be Made to the Commission Regarding Disputes Referred to the Court” (Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law). Istanbul Law Review. 2025;83(1):97-119. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008

ABNT

Köle, M. Evaluation of Applications to the Insurance Arbitration Commission with the Claim of Increased Degree of Incapacity for Work Under the Rule “No Application Can Be Made to the Commission Regarding Disputes Referred to the Court” (Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law). Istanbul Law Review, [Publisher Location], v. 83, n. 1, p. 97-119, 2025.

Chicago: Author-Date Style

Köle, Mehmet,. 2025. “Evaluation of Applications to the Insurance Arbitration Commission with the Claim of Increased Degree of Incapacity for Work Under the Rule “No Application Can Be Made to the Commission Regarding Disputes Referred to the Court” (Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law).” Istanbul Law Review 83, no. 1: 97-119. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008

Chicago: Humanities Style

Köle, Mehmet,. “Evaluation of Applications to the Insurance Arbitration Commission with the Claim of Increased Degree of Incapacity for Work Under the Rule “No Application Can Be Made to the Commission Regarding Disputes Referred to the Court” (Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law).” Istanbul Law Review 83, no. 1 (May. 2025): 97-119. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008

Harvard: Australian Style

Köle, M 2025, 'Evaluation of Applications to the Insurance Arbitration Commission with the Claim of Increased Degree of Incapacity for Work Under the Rule “No Application Can Be Made to the Commission Regarding Disputes Referred to the Court” (Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law)', Istanbul Law Review, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 97-119, viewed 22 May. 2025, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008

Harvard: Author-Date Style

Köle, M. (2025) ‘Evaluation of Applications to the Insurance Arbitration Commission with the Claim of Increased Degree of Incapacity for Work Under the Rule “No Application Can Be Made to the Commission Regarding Disputes Referred to the Court” (Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law)’, Istanbul Law Review, 83(1), pp. 97-119. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008 (22 May. 2025).

MLA

Köle, Mehmet,. “Evaluation of Applications to the Insurance Arbitration Commission with the Claim of Increased Degree of Incapacity for Work Under the Rule “No Application Can Be Made to the Commission Regarding Disputes Referred to the Court” (Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law).” Istanbul Law Review, vol. 83, no. 1, 2025, pp. 97-119. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008

Vancouver

Köle M. Evaluation of Applications to the Insurance Arbitration Commission with the Claim of Increased Degree of Incapacity for Work Under the Rule “No Application Can Be Made to the Commission Regarding Disputes Referred to the Court” (Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law). Istanbul Law Review [Internet]. 22 May. 2025 [cited 22 May. 2025];83(1):97-119. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008

ISNAD

Köle, Mehmet. “Evaluation of Applications to the Insurance Arbitration Commission with the Claim of Increased Degree of Incapacity for Work Under the Rule “No Application Can Be Made to the Commission Regarding Disputes Referred to the Court” (Article 30/14 of the Insurance Law)”. Istanbul Law Review 83/1 (May. 2025): 97-119. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2025.83.1.0008

Volume 83, Issue 12025, P. 97-119

TIMELINE

Submitted	02.11.2024
Accepted	24.02.2025
Published Online	06.05.2025

LICENCE

Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

Istanbul Law Review