Statute of Limitations for Traffic Insurance Damage Payments

Statute of Limitations for Traffic Insurance Damage Payments. The statute of limitations for traffic insurance compensation is one of the most critical elements that establishes the balance between the victim’s right to seek legal remedies and the principle of legal certainty. It has a dynamic structure that expands beyond the basic 2- and 10-year periods stipulated in the Highway Traffic Law, with the implementation of extended 8- or 15-year statutes of limitations under the Turkish Penal Code if the act constitutes a crime. According to established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the beginning of the statute of limitations, particularly for bodily injuries, is not the date of the accident, but the date of the report at which the medical treatment process ends and disability is confirmed. This creates a strong protective shield for the victim, meaning that periods that appear to have expired on paper are still valid in practice.

1. The Rule of Time in Insurance Law and the Balance of Social Protection

In the Turkish legal system, the enforceability of a right is not spread over an infinite period. The principle of legal certainty necessitates that the state of uncertainty between the debtor and the creditor be resolved within a reasonable time, ensuring social peace and stability. In this context, the institution of “statute of limitations” is a defense tool derived from substantive law, which renders the right to sue and pursue a “deficient obligation” if the creditor does not claim their right within the periods prescribed by law, granting the debtor the opportunity to avoid payment. Compulsory Financial Liability Insurance for Motor Vehicles (ZMSS), commonly known as traffic insurance, is one of the most fundamental social security mechanisms designed to spread risk and protect the physical and material integrity of third parties in modern industrial societies. In the operation of this mechanism, the limitation rules that define the boundaries of insurance companies’ liabilities and the temporal framework of victims’ freedom to seek rights constitute one of the most complex areas of doctrine and judicial practice.

This report addresses the statute of limitations regime in traffic insurance within the framework of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918 (KTK), the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (TBK), the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (TCK), and relevant procedural laws. It analyzes the subject with academic depth and strategic foresight for practice, in light of its historical development, normative structure, interaction with criminal law, and the settled or controversial precedents of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay). The primary aim of the report is to go beyond the wording of the legislation and reveal how concepts such as “learning,” “evolving situation,” “extended penal statute of limitations,” and “interruption causes” play a vital role in concrete disputes. In particular, the decisions rendered by the General Assembly of Civil Chambers (HGK) of the Court of Cassation in recent years are shaped around an axis that expands the liability of insurance companies and reinforces the principle of interpretation in favor of the victim.

The statute of limitations is not merely a matter of “time calculation”; it is a multi-layered legal problem involving the subtleties of procedural law, medical expert processes, and the effect of criminal proceedings on civil lawsuits (preliminary issue). Therefore, our analysis will focus on the reflections of these articles in dynamic judicial processes, cause-and-effect relationships, and their significance in terms of legal policy, rather than a static interpretation of legal articles.

2. Basic Statute of Limitations Regime under Article 109 of the Highway Traffic Law

The “lex specialis” (special law) provision to be applied in compensation claims arising from traffic accidents is Article 109 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918. In traffic accidents based on tort liability, the legislator has envisaged a dual system to grant the victim a reasonable time to learn about the damage and to end the pressure on insurance companies and operators within a certain term: Relative (Subjective) Period and Absolute (Objective) Period.

2.1. Two-Year Relative Period and the “Learning” Doctrine

Pursuant to KTK Art. 109/1, claims for compensation for material damages arising from motor vehicle accidents become time-barred within two years starting from the date the injured party learns of the damage and the person liable for compensation. Although this regulation parallels the general tort statute of limitations in TBK Art. 72, the unique nature of traffic accidents makes the interpretation of the concept of “learning” critical.

2.1.1. Criterion of Learning the Damage

“Learning the damage” means learning the existence, nature, and essential elements of the damage. However, according to Court of Cassation precedents, this does not mean knowing the exact amount of the damage down to the penny. It is considered sufficient for the scope of the damage to become determinable for the period to begin.

In Material Damages: Generally, the damage is considered learned with the expert report/accident detection report prepared at the moment of the accident or immediately after. The extent of the damage to the vehicle is visible, and the repair cost is determinable. Therefore, in accidents with material damage, the 2-year period typically begins on a date very close to the accident date.
In Bodily Damages: The phenomenon of “learning” is much more complex in bodily damages. Issues such as the nature of the injury, the treatment process, the moment of recovery (healing), and whether a permanent disability remains can push the date of “learning the damage” to a date much later than the event date. This issue will be detailed under the “Evolving Situation” heading in later sections of our report.

2.1.2. Criterion of Learning the Person Liable for Compensation

For the period to begin, the “perpetrator” (person liable for compensation) must be learned in addition to the damage. In traffic accidents, those liable for compensation are generally; the vehicle driver, the vehicle operator (license holder), and the Compulsory Financial Liability Insurer of the vehicle.

Unidentified Perpetrator Accidents: If the vehicle causing the accident fled the scene and its identity cannot be determined, the 2-year statute of limitations does not begin to run. The victim has the right to file a lawsuit from the date they learn of the perpetrator. However, this right is limited by the 10-year absolute period in any case.
Assurance Account: In cases where the perpetrator cannot be identified, an application can be made to the Assurance Account for bodily damages. Here too, the statute of limitations begins from the date it is learned that a claim can be made from the Assurance Account.

2.2. Ten-Year Absolute Period and Principle of Legal Certainty

To prevent legal relationships from remaining suspended forever and uncertainty from continuing, the legislator has ruled that a lawsuit must be filed within ten years starting from the day of the accident in any case, regardless of when the learning phenomenon occurs.

Nature: This period is not a “forfeiture period” but a “statute of limitations.” The practical result is: The judge cannot take the 10-year period into account ex officio (on their own motion). The defendant (insurance company or operator) must raise the statute of limitations defense within the due time. If the defendant misses the deadline or does not raise the statute of limitations defense, they may have to pay compensation even if 10 years have passed.
Start Moment: The 10-year period invariably begins to run from the “accident date.” The fact that the victim is in a coma, abroad, or learns of the perpetrator years later does not change the start of this period. The only exception to this rule is the “Extended Penal Statute of Limitations,” which is applied if a longer period is foreseen in criminal laws, as detailed below.

2.3. Statute of Limitations in Recourse Rights

Liability in traffic accidents presents a chain structure. The recourse rights (right to turn back) of the compensation obligors against each other become time-barred in two yearsstarting from the day they have fully fulfilled their own obligations and learned of the person to be recursed against.

Insurer’s Recourse to Operator: For example, if the insurance company, after paying the third party, determines that the accident occurred due to drunk driving, it can recourse to its own insured (the operator). The period for this recourse lawsuit begins on the date the insurance company makes the payment to the victim.
Recourse Among Jointly Liable Parties: In accidents involving more than one vehicle, an insurance company that pays the innocent victim can recourse to the insurer of the other at-fault vehicle. Here too, the 2-year period runs from the payment date.

The table below summarizes the basic periods under KTK Art. 109/1 and Art. 109/4:

Legal Situation	Limitation Period	Start of Period	Legal Basis
Victim’s Compensation Claim (Relative)	2 Years	Date Damage and Perpetrator Learned	KTK Art. 109/1
Victim’s Compensation Claim (Absolute)	10 Years	Accident Date	KTK Art. 109/1
Recourse Claims (Insurer/Operator)	2 Years	Date of Payment and Liable Party Learned	KTK Art. 109/4
Difference Compensation (Insufficient Payment)	2 Years	Date of Release Receipt/Payment	KTK General Conditions & Yargıtay

Table 1: Basic Statute of Limitations Periods under KTK

3. Extended Penal Statute of Limitations: Expanding Periods in Favor of the Victim

In traffic law practice, the strongest mechanism protecting victims’ rights is the institution regulated in KTK Art. 109/2 and referred to in doctrine as the “Extended Penal Statute of Limitations.” This regulation is a reflection of the principle of unity of law: If the legal order qualifies an act as a “crime” and preserves the state’s power to punish for a long time (e.g., 15 years), restricting the compensation right of the individual harmed by the same act to a short period like 2 years would damage the sense of justice.

3.1. Legal Justification and Application Conditions

The provision of KTK Art. 109/2 explicitly states; if the lawsuit arises from an act requiring a penalty and the Penal Code prescribes a longer statute of limitations for this act, this penal statute of limitations shall also apply in the compensation lawsuit. According to the settled precedents of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, the following conditions must coexist for this provision to apply:

The Act Must Constitute a Crime: The act causing the accident must fit a crime type within the meaning of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). Traffic accidents generally constitute the crimes of “negligent killing” (TCK Art. 85) or “negligent injury” (TCK Art. 89).
Penal Statute of Limitations Must Be Longer: The statute of limitations for the lawsuit prescribed in the TCK must be longer than the 2-year period in the KTK; in negligent crimes, this period is always longer (8 or 15 years).

3.1.1. Is Filing a Criminal Case Mandatory?

The Court of Cassation’s approach on this issue is extremely clear and in favor of the victim. For the extended penal statute of limitations to apply, it is not a condition that a criminal case has been filed against the perpetrator or that a conviction decision has been given.

In Cases of Non-Prosecution and Acquittal: Even if a decision of “non-prosecution” (KYOK) is given by the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the defendant is acquitted in the criminal court due to “lack of evidence,” the civil judge is not bound by these decisions pursuant to TBK Art. 74. If the civil judge determines that the material elements of the act constitute a crime (for example, determines the existence of negligence with a fault expert report), they apply the penal statute of limitations periods. The settled view of the 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation is that “the definition of the act as a crime is sufficient.”

3.2. Calculation of Periods under TCK Article 66

Extended penal statute of limitations periods are determined by referring to the “lawsuit statute of limitations” periods regulated in Article 66 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237. These periods are tiered according to the upper limit of the penalty for the crime.

3.2.1. Negligent Injury (TCK Art. 89) and the 8-Year Period

In traffic accidents with injuries, the act constitutes the crime of “negligent injury” under TCK Art. 89. Although the penalty for this crime varies according to the nature of the injury, pursuant to TCK Art. 66/1-e, the lawsuit statute of limitations is 8 years for “crimes requiring imprisonment of not more than five years.”

Application: In accidents where only injury occurs (no death), the victim’s period to file a compensation lawsuit is 8 years from the accident date. This period overrides the 2-year relative period.

3.2.2. Negligent Killing (TCK Art. 85) and the 15-Year Period

Since the situation is more severe in fatal traffic accidents, the periods are also extended.

TCK 85/1 (Death of one person): The penalty for the crime is imprisonment from 2 years to 6 years. Pursuant to TCK 66/1-d, the lawsuit statute of limitations is 15 years for “crimes requiring imprisonment of more than five years and less than twenty years.”
TCK 85/2 (Multiple deaths or death + injury): The penalty for the crime is imprisonment from 2 years to 15 years. Again, pursuant to TCK 66/1-d, the statute of limitations is 15 years.

Important Precedent: If there is both death and injury in an accident (e.g., A died, B was injured), the event is considered a single act and falls under TCK 85/2. In this case, even if only the injured person (B) files a compensation lawsuit, since the entirety of the event is the crime of “causing death and injury by negligence,” the statute of limitations for the injured person is applied as 15 years, not 8 years. This is a result of the Court of Cassation’s principle of “reflection of criminal law qualification on civil lawsuit.”

The table below details the extended periods applied in traffic accidents according to TCK Article 66:

Accident Type	Relevant TCK Article	Penalty for Crime	Lawsuit Statute of Limitations (TCK 66)
With Injury	Negligent Injury (Art. 89)	3 months to 1 year (basic form)	8 Years
Single Death	Negligent Killing (Art. 85/1)	2 years to 6 years	15 Years
Multiple Deaths / Death+Injury	Negligent Killing (Art. 85/2)	2 years to 15 years	15 Years

Table 2: Extended Penal Statute of Limitations Periods by Accident Type

3.3. Problem of Reflection of Penal Statute of Limitations to the Insurer

For many years, insurance companies argued that since they are not parties to the criminal case, and due to the principle of individuality of crime, the penal statute of limitations should only apply to the defendant (driver). However, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation and relevant chambers have definitively concluded this debate in favor of the victim.

Legal Justification: The insurer’s liability is parallel and accessory to the operator’s liability. Pursuant to KTK Art. 111, the insurer is liable for compensation in cases where the operator is liable. The term “lawsuit” in KTK Art. 109/2 covers all compensation lawsuits arising from the act, without distinguishing between liable parties. Therefore, if the act constitutes a crime, the insurance company is also subject to 15-year or 8-year periods.

Decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation: “Considering that the receivable subject to the lawsuit arises from an act considered a crime, the extended penal statute of limitations must also be applied to the defendant insurer. (…) The view that the penal statute of limitations will not apply because there is no criminal case against the defendant insurance company is incorrect.”

3.4. “Death by Own Fault” Debate in Compensation for Loss of Support

The issue most debated by the HGK and where precedents have fluctuated from time to time is the statute of limitations in lawsuits filed by survivors (dependents) in accidents where the driver caused their own death with full fault.

Problem: If the driver is fully at fault and had a unilateral accident (e.g., hit a wall), causing their own death is not a “crime” under TCK (suicide or death by own negligence is not punished). If there is no crime, can the extended penal statute of limitations (15 years) be applied?
Decisions of Resistance and HGK Stance: Some local courts and Court of Cassation members have argued that since the elements of the crime are not formed, the 2-year period should apply. In a relevant resistance decision, it was insisted on the 2-year period on the grounds that “a person causing their own death is not regulated as a crime, and a crime cannot be created by analogy.”
Dominant View: However, the majority view of the Court of Cassation and recent decisions are in the direction that the event fits the crime type of “negligent killing” in the way it occurred in the external world, and the civil judge should not be bound by narrow criminal techniques. Especially if another passenger died or was injured in the accident, since the act has already become a crime, the 15-year period is applied for the driver’s heirs as well. However, in “purely unilateral accidents where only the driver died,” the risk of the 2-year period legally exists and caution is required.

4. Start of Statute of Limitations in Bodily Damages: “Evolving Situation” Doctrine

The starting moment of the statute of limitations in traffic accidents presents a much more complex structure in bodily damages compared to material damages. General principle of law, “learning the damage,” must be interpreted flexibly due to the uncertainty of medical processes. The Court of Cassation has postponed the start of the statute of limitations to the final point of medical recovery by developing the concept of “evolving situation” (perfecting situation) in this field.

4.1. Finalization of Disability and “Final Report” Date

According to the settled precedents of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation; in bodily damages (permanent incapacity), the victim’s full learning of the damage is only possible with the completion of the treatment process and the medical finalization of the permanent disability rate.

Principle: The statute of limitations begins not from the date of the event, but from the date the disability report is obtained and the victim learns of the permanent disability rate with this report.
Example: If a victim who had an accident in 2015 underwent various surgeries for 4 years and their treatment was only completed in 2019, resulting in a “Final Report” containing “20% disability,” the statute of limitations (2 years or 8 years) begins to run in 2019, not 2015. Because between 2015-2019, the victim does not know “how much” (the percentage) their damage is, and they cannot be expected to know.

4.2. Effect of Evolving and Changing Situation on Statute of Limitations

“Evolving situation” is the state where the scope of the damage changes over time, increases, or new complications arise. The Court of Cassation interprets this situation as “the damage is not yet complete.”

Non-running of the Period: If there is a developing situation, the statute of limitations does not run. Because the injured party has not yet learned the final dimension of the damage suffered.
New Right to Sue: In case the bodily damage increases over time (e.g., onset of epilepsy seizures years after the accident or the plate in the leg causing osteoporosis), each increase in the incapacity rate counts as a new item of damage. For this new situation, a new statute of limitations begins from the date it is detected.
Yargıtay HGK Decision (2019/424 K.): In the relevant decision, the court found the resistance decision justified stating “the plaintiff had a developing situation due to the accident, in this case, the amended part was not time-barred, and the period started from the date the developing situation stopped and was detected.” This decision is the strongest antithesis against the insurance companies’ defense of “10 years have passed since the accident, the file is closed.”

4.3. Petition for Amendment (Islah) and Statute of Limitations Defense

A scenario frequently encountered in practice is: The victim files a “partial lawsuit” instead of an “indefinite debt lawsuit” (e.g., claims 1,000 TL). During the trial, the expert report arrives and it is understood that the damage is 100,000 TL. The victim submits a petition for “amendment” (increasing the claim) for the remaining 99,000 TL.

Risk in Partial Lawsuit: If the lawsuit was opened as a partial lawsuit, the statute of limitations is interrupted only for the initially claimed 1,000 TL. The statute of limitations continues to run for the remaining 99,000 TL. If the 8 or 15-year period (or 2-year period if there is no evolving situation) from the accident date has expired on the date the amendment petition is submitted, the defendant insurance company can raise the “statute of limitations defense” for the amended part, and this part will be rejected by the court.
Assurance of Indefinite Debt Lawsuit: However, if the lawsuit is opened as an “indefinite debt lawsuit” pursuant to HMK Art. 107, the statute of limitations is considered interrupted for the entire receivable on the date the lawsuit is filed. The subsequent increase in value (determination of the claim result) is not a new lawsuit or amendment, but a continuation of the lawsuit. Therefore, a statute of limitations defense cannot be raised against the increase in value in an indefinite debt lawsuit. The relevant precedents of Yargıtay HGK emphasize the vital importance of this distinction.

5. Causes Interrupting and Suspending Statute of Limitations and Procedural Law Reflections

The statute of limitations is not a river flowing uninterrupted; it can be suspended (freezing of the flow) or interrupted (resetting of the period to start from the beginning) by legal transactions. Special regulations in TBK and KTK have introduced mechanisms specific to insurance practice in this regard.

5.1. Application to Insurer pursuant to KTK Article 97: Suspension of the Period

Article 97 of Law No. 2918 has made a written application to the relevant insurance institution a “condition of litigation” before filing a lawsuit in traffic insurance cases. This application has a “suspensive” effect on the statute of limitations regime.

15-Day Suspension: During the 15 business days granted for the company to answer the application starting from the date of proper application to the insurance company (or until the company gives a rejection response earlier), the statute of limitations stops.
Effect of TBK Art. 153: This situation corresponds to the case of “impossibility of asserting the receivable in Turkish courts” regulated in TBK Art. 153. Because the law prohibits filing a lawsuit without making an application and waiting for 15 days.
Strategic Importance: For a victim who applies to the insurance company 1 day before the statute of limitations expires, the period freezes. When the company answers 15 days later, the victim still has 1 day to file a lawsuit.

5.2. Causes Interrupting Statute of Limitations (TBK Art. 154)

When the statute of limitations is interrupted, the elapsed time is erased and a new period (2, 8, or 15 years depending on accident type) begins to run from the date of interruption.

Debtor’s Acknowledgment (Partial Payment): Any payment made by the insurance company to the victim (medical expenses, partial compensation, etc.) implies acknowledgment (acceptance) of the existence of the debt. The statute of limitations is interrupted on the payment date and starts from scratch. This implies that small payments made by insurance companies to “close the file” can actually extend the legal liability period for years.
Filing a Lawsuit and Enforcement Proceedings: Submitting a lawsuit petition to the court or initiating proceedings at the enforcement office interrupts the statute of limitations.
Declaratory Action: According to Court of Cassation decisions, filing a lawsuit for determination of evidence or having fault/damage determination done are also among transactions interrupting the statute of limitations.

5.3. Distinction between Indefinite Debt Lawsuit and Partial Lawsuit: Transformation of Yargıtay

This heading is the most critical section of the report in terms of procedural law.Regarding the interruption of the statute of limitations, the type of lawsuit is decisive. The recent change in precedents of the 9th Civil Chamber and the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation has made this issue even more important.

Partial Lawsuit: In a partial lawsuit filed pursuant to HMK Art. 109, the plaintiff claims only a part of their receivable (reserving their rights regarding the surplus). According to the settled precedent of the Court of Cassation, a partial lawsuit interrupts the statute of limitations only for the amount sued. The statute of limitations continues to run for the reserved part.
Indefinite Debt Lawsuit: In an indefinite debt lawsuit filed pursuant to HMK Art. 107, the plaintiff makes the entire receivable the subject of discussion but determines its amount temporarily. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation accepts that the indefinite debt lawsuit interrupts the statute of limitations for the entire receivable.
Change in Precedent and Risk: Previously, the Court of Cassation used to reject indefinite debt lawsuits filed for “determinable” receivables on procedural grounds due to “lack of legal interest.” However, in recent precedents, there have been evolutions towards a more flexible approach (in some chambers) or a rigid approach towards definitive rejection (9th HD adopting 22nd HD view) stating that where determining the receivable requires trial and expert examination (such as labor receivables, traffic compensations), an indefinite debt lawsuit can be filed, or if conditions are not met, instead of direct rejection, time should be given to the plaintiff or the lawsuit should be interpreted as a partial lawsuit. Since compensation calculation in traffic accidents requires actuarial expertise, filing an indefinite debt lawsuit is the safest way for the victim’s attorney as it interrupts the statute of limitations for the entire claim.

5.4. Application to Insurance Arbitration Commission

Application to the Insurance Arbitration Commission produces results equivalent to filing a lawsuit in the sense of HMK. The statute of limitations is interrupted the moment the application is made. Periods passing during arbitration proceedings (appointment of arbitrator, decision making) are accepted as trial periods.

Objection Arbitral Tribunal Process: In case of objection to the Commission’s decision and the file going to the Objection Arbitral Tribunal, the statute of limitations does not run. However, after the decision becomes final, the 10-year general statute of limitations (EBL Art. 39) comes into play for enforcement with judgment.

6. Special Situations in Vehicle Value Loss and Other Compensation Items

“Vehicle Value Loss,” one of the material compensation items, constitutes a large volume of insurance disputes in recent years. The application of the statute of limitations in this item differs from bodily damages.

6.1. 2-Year Rule in Value Loss Claims

Vehicle value loss is directly in the status of “material damage.” Therefore, it is subject to the 2-year statute of limitations in KTK Art. 109/1.

Start: The period begins from the date the accident occurred and the damage was learned (expert report/detection report).
Does Extended Penal Statute of Limitations Apply? Theoretically, although the Court of Cassation’s principle that “penal statute of limitations reflects on all material and moral damages” is valid, in practice, if the accident involves only material damage (no injury/death), since the act does not constitute a crime under TCK (damaging property by negligence is not punished), the extended penal statute of limitations does not apply. However, if even one person is injured in the accident, it can be legally argued that the 8-year extended penal statute of limitations should also apply to the vehicle owner’s value loss claim, and there are decisions of the Court of Cassation in this direction (that the act is a whole).

6.2. Non-Pecuniary Compensation Claims

KTK Art. 90 refers to the tort provisions of the Code of Obligations regarding non-pecuniary compensation issues. Pursuant to TBK Art. 72, non-pecuniary compensation claims are also subject to the same statute of limitations periods (2 years / 10 years) as material compensation.

Penal Statute of Limitations: The extended penal statute of limitations (8 or 15 years) is valid exactly for non-pecuniary compensation claims as well. The Court of Cassation has confirmed that non-pecuniary compensation is a result of tort and the penal period will apply in acts constituting a crime.

7. Conclusion and Strategic Assessment

The statute of limitations for traffic insurance damage payments has ceased to be a static “time calculation” and has turned into a strategic field of legal struggle due to the scattered structure of the legislation and the dynamic precedents of the Court of Cassation. The main conclusions and action proposals reached as a result of our report’s examinations are as follows:

Hierarchy of Basic Rule and Exception: Although KTK Art. 109/1 says “2 years,” since the overwhelming majority of traffic accidents are “with injury” or “fatal,” the actual period in practice is 8 years (injury) or 15 years (death). Insurance companies’ defenses of “2 years passed, time-barred” are often invalid in the face of the criminal nature of the act.
Insurer’s Escape Route Closed: The Court of Cassation has definitively rejected the insurance companies’ defense of “we are not a party to the criminal case.” The penal statute of limitations also reflects on the insurer due to the principle of joint liability.
Decisiveness of Medical Report: In bodily damages, the period starts not on the accident date, but on the “Final Report” date. If there is an “evolving situation,” the period does not run at all. This allows files that seem to have closed years ago to be reopened.
Importance of Procedural Law: Filing an indefinite debt lawsuit is the most powerful tool to eliminate the statute of limitations risk (especially at the amendment stage). Filing a partial lawsuit carries a serious statute of limitations risk for the remaining receivable.
Rule of Honesty: In cases where insurance companies cause the statute of limitations to expire by stalling the victim, the Court of Cassation does not listen to the statute of limitations defense pursuant to TMK Art. 2 (rule of honesty).

In conclusion; forfeiture periods and statutes of limitations in traffic insurance compensations should be handled with a holistic approach, together with the criminal law dimension and medical development of the event. It is possible for jurists and rights holders to reach periods of 8, 15, and even longer by examining the “crime” quality and “evolving situation” nature of the event without getting stuck on the short 2-year period.

Our Latest Articles

« Previous Post