An Analysis of the Provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code Regarding the Violation of the Policyholder’s Duty of Disclosure in Comparison with the Provisions of the German Insurance Contract Act and the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law
Aslıhan Erbaş AçıkelAt the outset of insurance contract negotiations, a set of complex legal relationships come into question for both parties. Based on mutual trust, and attributing particular importance to the principles of good faith, parties’ obligations to inform one another are a significant aspect of this legal relationship. The law mandates the fulfillment of this obligation at the very beginning of contract negotiations. In this context, the Turkish Commercial Code applies the duty of disclosure and the obligation to inform both on the policyholder and insurer through detailed provisions. However, related provisions are vague and differing opinions arise both in practice and the doctrine. Since most general insurance conditions are published prior to the new Code’s entry into force, detailed analyses regarding the policyholder’s duty of disclosure are essential. This paper investigates insurers’ rights regarding a policyholder’s breach of the duty of disclosure and examines other related legal matters with a comparison of rights provided by the German Insurance Contract Act, as the source law, and the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law. Within this scope, this article endeavors to scrutinize whether the rights of the insurer stipulated under Article 1439 of the Turkish Commercial Code are categorized according to the time when an insurer discovers a breach, legal nature of the right to cancellation, and challenges of determining the degree of the fault of the insurer following the discovery of a risk and the necessity to establish a link with the policyholder’s duty of disclosure and the insurer’s obligation to inform. Furthermore, court decisions related to the disclosure will be analyzed in light of these findings.
Sigorta Ettirenin Sözleşme Öncesi Beyan Yükümlülüğünün İhlaline İlişkin Türk Ticaret Kanunu Hükümlerinin Alman Sigorta Sözleşmeleri Kanunu’nda ve Avrupa Sigorta Sözleşmesi Hukuku Prensipleri’nde Yer Alan Düzenlemeler Açısından Değerlendirilmesi
Aslıhan Erbaş AçıkelSigorta sözleşmesine ilişkin müzakerelerin başladığı andan itibaren oldukça karmaşık hak ve yükümlülüklerden teşekkül eden bir borç ilişkisi doğmaktadır. Karşılıklı güven ilişkisine dayanan ve dürüstlük kuralının özel bir önemi haiz olduğu bu borç ilişkisinde, tarafların birbirlerini aydınlatma yükümlülüğü sözleşmenin kurulması safhasında o kadar esaslı bir role sahiptir ki kanun koyucu her iki taraf için de bu yükümlülüğün ifasını özel düzenlemelere tabi tutmuştur. Nitekim 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nda sigortacının aydınlatma yükümlülüğüne yer verilmiş ve sigorta ettirenin sözleşme öncesi beyan yükümlülüğü çok detaylı bir şekilde düzenlenmiştir. Bu kapsamda Kanun’da sigorta ettirenin sözleşme öncesi beyan yükümlülüğünü nasıl ifa edeceği ve ifa etmemesi ya da eksik yahut yanlış ifa etmesi halinde doğacak sonuçlar belirtilmiştir. Ancak ilgili Kanun hükümleri pek çok yönden belirsizlik taşımakta, bu nedenle uygulamada ve öğretide çok farklı şekilde yorumlanmaktadır. Sigorta genel şartlarının çoğunun 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun yürürlüğe girmesinden önce kaleme alındığı dikkate alındığında, konuya ilişkin detaylı incelemelerin önemi ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, sigorta ettirenin sözleşme öncesi beyan yükümlülüğünü ihlal etmesi halinde sigortacının sahip olduğu hakları Avrupa Birliği Sigorta Sözleşmeleri Prensipleri ve mehaz kanun olan Alman Sigorta Sözleşmesi Kanunu ile karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alarak incelemektir. Bu çerçevede beyan yükümlülüğünün ihlal edilmesi halinde sigortacının TTK m. 1439’da düzenlenen haklarının, beyan yükümlülüğünün ihlal edilmesinden önce veya sonra öğrenilmesine göre bir ayrıma tabi tutulup tutulmadığı, cayma hakkının niteliği ve bu hakka ilişkin olarak ortaya çıkan sorunlar, rizikonun gerçekleşmesi halinde uygulanacak hükümler yönünden sigortacının kusurunun belirleyici olmasının yarattığı güçlükler ve sigorta ettirenin beyan yükümlülüğü ile sigortacının aydınlatma yükümlülüğü arasında nasıl bir ilişki kurulması gerektiği üzerinde durulacaktır. Ayrıca çalışma sırasında elde edilen bulgular ışığında konuya ilişkin yargı kararları irdelenecektir.
This paper analyses the legal remedies for policyholder’s breach of precontractual duty of disclosure under Turkish law in comparison to German source law and Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL), as the most recent model law. After describing the remedies in German law for breach of duty in the first chapter, PEICL’s provisions are explained, in the second chapter, revealing the differences between provisions. In light of these findings, remedies set forth in Turkish law are reviewed in the third chapter. A subchapter further analyses the upper courts’ jurisprudence. The author’s primary motivation is to answer some questions regarding the new system established by Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102 for policyholder’s duty of disclosure:
In case of a breach of the precontractual duty of disclosure, German law provides for the right of withdrawal with an ex-tunc effect, termination, and contract variation as remedies. In contrast, PEICL only delivers the right to termination and variation. According to German law, the insurer may not exercise the right to withdraw from the contract if the policyholder was neither faulty nor acted in slight negligence while breaching the duty of disclosure. The insurer can withdraw the contract if a policyholder is found to have intentionally breached their duty or with gross negligence. If the policyholder breaches this duty with gross negligence, then an additional condition is required to withdraw the contract: It should be presumed that the contract would not have been concluded by the insurer if they were duly informed of a previously undisclosed fact prior to the conclusion of the contract. German law includes the right to terminate a contract if a policyholder breaches their obligation without fault or with only slight negligence; however, this right to terminate the contract can only be exercised if the insurer would not have concluded the contract if the fact that was not disclosed prior to contract conclusion was known. The PEICL deviates from German law by not setting forth a right to withdraw a contract and in terms of the conditions required to exercise this right of termination. Under PEICL, the insurer can terminate the contract even in circumstances in which the policyholder’s obligation is breached without fault, under the condition that the insurer would not be expected to conclude the contract if the information that was not disclosed prior to contract conclusion was known. If the policyholder breaches the duty of disclosure, whether by slight or gross negligence, the insurer can terminate the contract without any further requirement.
Turkish law significantly differs from German law and PEICL regarding the right of cancellation because it does not require the default of the policyholder as a condition for the exercise of this right. Even when the policyholder is not at fault, an insurer can cancel a contract unless the insurer can be shown to have caused the policyholder’s breach. Regarding the right of cancellation, Turkish law also does not address conditions in which an insurer would not conclude the contract if an undisclosed fact was known prior to contract conclusion.
Another notable view of the doctrine is Turkish law’s categorization of available remedies, which is offered to the insurer in two subsets. The first category refers to circumstances in which the insurer discovers a policyholder’s breach prior to the occurrence of the risk. The insurer is then entitled to cancel the contract within 15 days or demand a premium increase. Second category rights appear when an insurer learns of a breach after the risk occurs. In this case, the insurer is only entitled to demand a reduction of insurance premium in consideration of the policyholder’s negligence and causation. The author disagrees with categorizing insurers’ rights based on the timing of the discovery of the breach. This approach does not solve the challenges of the remaining imminent possibility that the risk might occur prior to the insurer’s exercising rights within the 15 days provided by the law. The author argues that the mechanism established in the Turkish Commercial Code should be construed similarly to the PEICL, so that Article 1439/1 determines the future of a contract by specifying the right of cancellation and right to increase premiums and Article 1439/2 addresses the question of whether and to what extent the insurance money would be paid after a risk occurred by providing the right to proportional reduction of insurance payout.
