By signing a much-discussed decision, the Supreme Court of Appeals did not consider the driver's being drunk sufficient for the insurance price not to be paid. According to the decision that will set a precedent, insurance companies will have to pay for the damage caused even though the driver is drunk ‘if there is no fault’.

Bad news came to the insurance companies from the Supreme Court. The 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation granted a visa to pay the repair fee of 10 thousand liras, which the insurance company did not cover because the driver was drunk. N.B forensic female driver had a one-sided traffic accident with her helmet-covered vehicle in Mardin Nusaybin four years ago. The damaged vehicle was transported to the service in Çorum at a distance of 922 kilometers with a tow truck and repaired. The insurance company did not pay for the damage, saying ”the driver is drunk". N.B filed a financial compensation claim for 16 thousand 400 liras to cover the repair and tow truck costs.

The defendant appealed

Pond 1. The Civil Court of First Instance decided to pay the damage in the light of the expert's report, despite the objection of the defendant insurance company's lawyer that ‘the driver is drunk, the damage is out of collateral’. Paid November 2, 2011, the court ordered the payment of 10 thousand 34 liras repair and 11 thousand 434 liras tow truck costs of 11 thousand 400 liras to the plaintiff driver. The defendant insurance company appealed the decision. The 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which examined the bilateral complaints, found paying the repair costs of 10 thousand 34 liras in accordance with the procedure and the law and approved it.

It must be proven

Lawyer Alper Sarıca stated that the Court of Cassation does not consider the driver's alcohol content sufficient for the insurance fee not to be paid by itself and said, “According to the general conditions of motor vehicle insurance, it is not enough for the driver to be alcoholic in order for the risk to be excluded from the coverage. It is necessary to prove by the insurer that the accident occurred exclusively under the influence of alcohol,” he said. Sarıca, who stated that a person cannot say ‘I will not pay the damage’ by the insurance company just because he is ‘alcoholic’, said the following:

There is no alcohol effect in the accident

"In this decision, the Court of Cassation concluded that the driver's being drunk had no effect on the accident and accepted the claim for compensation. Whether the driver has a 200 profile alcoholic, while driving on the road, if a car comes from the opposite lane and falls on it, the automobile insurance company cannot say, ‘You are drunk, I will not pay’. The applications of the Supreme Court are in this direction. The Supreme Court is looking at whether alcohol caused the accident exclusively, road, weather conditions, defect rate. But we are Turkish people. Insurance companies do not pay for damage because of ’alcoholic', 5 out of 100 people file a lawsuit.”

If there is alcohol, insurance is definitely not paid

Erhan Tuncay, Secretary General of the Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Companies of Turkey, said the following regarding the issue: “Casco definitely does not pay for accidents while driving under the influence of alcohol. This situation is already in the law. since there is no such nerve as a 30 or 50 profile, it turns out that the casco will not pay for the drunk driving accident in any way. It is necessary to look at how the court made this decision. Turkey is a country where driving under the influence of alcohol is prohibited. If we take this as a starting point, we can see that it will not be paid.”

922 km tow truck fee was not paid to the helmet

Court of Cassation, Gölcük 1. The decision of the Civil Court of First Instance to pay the tow truck costs of one thousand 400 liras to the driver was overturned. The Court of Cassation, which decided that the 922 kilometer tow fee cannot be paid to the helmet, stated that the damage was aggravated by bringing the vehicle from Nusaybin to Çorum, while the vehicle should be towed to the nearest service to the accident site. The court was asked to determine an “ordinary” and “reasonable” tow fee by receiving October report from the same expert. If the Local Court complies with the violation, it will set a new attractive fee “reasonable-usual”. However, if the court resists the first decision, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals will have the final say.