Background
On 25 September 2021, a construction-site worker suffered a fatal heart attack while on duty at a worksite belonging to his employer. The employer held a workplace package insurance policy (policy no. 257356574, effective 26 July 2021–26 July 2022) issued by the defendant insurance company, which included an employer’s liability section covering claims by workers or their dependants arising from workplace accidents to the extent those claims exceeded Social Security Institution (SGK) benefits. The deceased’s widow filed suit against the insurer in the Karşıyaka Commercial Court, seeking loss-of-support compensation under that policy. She initially claimed 1,000 TL in a deliberately indeterminate-amount action (belirsiz alacak davası) under Article 107 of the Civil Procedure Code (HMK), expressly reserving the right to increase the amount once the full loss was calculated.
The SGK conducted its own investigation and formally classified the death as a workplace accident, assigning the employer 10% fault, and began paying the widow a survivor’s benefit as of 1 October 2021. During trial, a panel of experts in occupational safety, insurance law, and actuarial science confirmed both the workplace-accident classification and the 10% fault finding, and calculated the widow’s net loss-of-support damage at 94,519.90 TL after deducting the SGK benefit’s proportional present value (35,087.68 TL, representing 10% of the SGK capitalised benefit of 359,876.81 TL). The plaintiff increased her claim to that full figure via a value-increase notice and a subsequent formal amendment (ıslah). The first-instance court accepted the claim in full and ordered the insurer to pay 94,519.90 TL with advance interest from the date of default.
The defendant insurer appealed (istinaf), raising four principal grounds: (1) the death should not have been classified as a workplace accident without a Forensic Medicine Institute (ATK) report; (2) the widow had impermissibly amended her claim a second time; (3) the insured employer (the construction company) had not been formally notified of the lawsuit as required by HMK; and (4) a payment of 41,357.12 TL the insurer had already made to the insured employer — which the insurer said covered an SGK subrogation demand — reduced the remaining policy limit (set at 100,000 TL per person) to 56,642.88 TL, capping any further liability.
The Court’s Holding
The Regional Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on all grounds. On the workplace-accident classification, the court found no error: the SGK’s own investigative report had already confirmed the death as a workplace accident before the lawsuit was filed, and the court-appointed expert panel independently corroborated that finding together with the 10% employer fault rate. The insurer’s demand for an additional ATK referral was therefore unnecessary. On the double-amendment point, the court applied settled Court of Cassation authority (Yargıtay 4th Civil Chamber, 20 May 2025, 2022/13608 E. 2025/8023 K.; 17th Civil Chamber, 4 November 2019, 2017/2842 E. 2019/10129 K.) holding that in an indeterminate-amount action a plaintiff may both increase the claim once under Article 107 HMK and amend once under Articles 176 et seq., making both procedural steps permissible. On the notification issue, the court held that although no formal ihbar petition was filed, the purpose of third-party notice had been achieved: the trial court had sent a letter of inquiry (müzekkere) directly to the employer requesting the deceased’s personnel file, the letter expressly identified the parties and the subject matter of the litigation, and the employer replied on 27 February 2023 — demonstrating actual notice.
The most significant ruling concerned the insurer’s attempt to reduce its remaining policy exposure by pointing to the 41,357.12 TL it had paid to the insured employer on 24 May 2023. The court classified that payment as a kötü ödeme — a bad or improper payment — that cannot reduce the insurer’s liability to the widow. Three interlocking reasons were given. First, the insurer had actual knowledge of the pending lawsuit and of the widow’s unresolved damages claim at the time of payment; under established case law an insurer may deduct a prior payment from its remaining limit only if it was made in good faith and in ignorance of other pending claims against the same policy limit. Second, the insurer’s conduct was internally contradictory: while simultaneously arguing in the litigation that the death was not a workplace accident and that the employer bore no fault, it quietly paid the employer for that same accident — a position the court characterised as incompatible with honest dealing. Third, the insurer concealed the payment from the trial court for five months (from 24 May 2023 until the appeal brief in October 2023), despite filing multiple substantive submissions during that period, and disclosed it only at the appellate stage. The court found this constituted abuse of rights (hakkın kötüye kullanımı) and declined to reward it by allowing the payment to erode the widow’s recovery.
The court accordingly upheld the first-instance judgment in its entirety, affirming the 94,519.90 TL award with advance interest from the date of default. Under Article 362(1)(a) HMK the decision is final as a matter of amount and not subject to further appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An insurer that pays the insured party while a third-party victim’s claim against the same policy limit is pending in court cannot rely on that payment to reduce its remaining exposure to the victim, unless it was genuinely unaware of the other claim and acted in good faith — conditions the court will scrutinise strictly.
- Concealing a mid-litigation payment from the trial court and disclosing it only on appeal — while filing other substantive submissions in the interim — constitutes abuse of procedural rights and will be treated as a further reason to deny the insurer any reduction in liability.
- In an indeterminate-amount action (belirsiz alacak davası) under HMK Article 107, the plaintiff may both increase the claimed amount once under that article and amend the claim once under the general ıslah provisions, giving two separate opportunities to align the pleaded figure with the evidence.
- Formal third-party notification (ihbar) under HMK Article 61 does not require a separate ihbar petition if the court’s own correspondence (e.g., a müzekkere) already gives the third party actual notice of the case and its subject matter.
- An SGK workplace-accident finding, confirmed by a court-appointed multi-disciplinary expert panel, will ordinarily preclude an insurer from demanding an additional Forensic Medicine Institute referral unless there is a specific evidential gap the panel could not resolve.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the principle — increasingly prominent in Turkish insurance litigation — that a liability insurer occupying the “prudent merchant” standard (basiretli tacir) cannot use strategic or procedurally opaque payments to insured parties as a device to shield itself from legitimate victim claims. By labelling the payment a kötü ödeme and linking the finding to the insurer’s contradictory litigation posture and its five-month disclosure delay, the court sends a clear signal that such manoeuvres will be evaluated holistically rather than in formal isolation from the insurer’s broader conduct.
The ruling also provides useful guidance on claim-structuring in indeterminate-amount personal injury and dependency cases: plaintiffs may combine the Article 107 upward adjustment with a subsequent formal ıslah to track evolving actuarial calculations — such as updated minimum-wage figures used in loss-of-support projections — without being penalised for what an opponent might characterise as a double amendment. For insurers and their counsel, the case underlines the importance of disclosing inter-party settlements and payments to the court promptly, and of avoiding positions in litigation that are difficult to reconcile with concurrent voluntary payments on the same risk.