Important policy limit statement from DASK

The Natural Disaster Insurance Institution made a statement saying, “The Supreme Court ruled that DASK’s liability was limited to the policy limit and overturned the decision taken by the Insurance Arbitration Commission Objection Arbitration Board.”

The Natural Disaster Insurance Institution (DASK) announced that the Supreme Court ruled that DASK’s liability is limited to the policy limit.

DASK’s statement stated that the Natural Disaster Insurance Institution is a public legal entity that is obliged to pay the insured’s damages resulting from earthquakes, within the policy coverage limits, with the funds formed from the policy premiums paid by the insured and the reinsurance protection received with these funds.

In line with this obligation given by the law, DASK’s only priority after the February 6 earthquakes was to ensure that the insured received their compensation as soon as possible and to eliminate their grievances. In this context, it was conveyed that the processes were handled in the fastest, most facilitating and most effective way, and all transactions were carried out in accordance with the legislation, law and rules and in a way that would be equal for all insured.

The statement included the following statements:

“DASK is an insurance pool owned by our citizens who currently have a Compulsory Earthquake Insurance policy, and its sole duty is to pay the damages that occur as a result of earthquakes in return for the premiums paid by our insured, ‘limited to the policy limit’ as stipulated by the legislation. Article A-4 of the Compulsory Earthquake Insurance General Conditions also includes the Determination of the Insurance Amount, and in the relevant article, it is stated that the insurance amount ‘cannot exceed the maximum coverage amount’ by referring to the Compulsory Earthquake Insurance Tariff and Instruction. As can be understood from this regulation, the Compulsory Earthquake Insurance policy is not a market value-based insurance, and requesting automatic payment according to the changing tariff without issuing an addendum and collecting additional premiums is incompatible with the general conditions of the Compulsory Earthquake Insurance General Conditions.

As a result of the objections, the issue was brought to the Supreme Court of Appeals as the higher decision authority, and the Supreme Court of Appeals made a precedent decision on the merits of the issue (2023/1340 E. 2024/5473 K.) and ruled that DASK’s liability was limited to the policy limit and overturned the decision made by the Insurance Arbitration Commission Objection Arbitration Board. Thus, following the precedent decision already given by our Regional Courts of Justice (Appeal) that DASK ‘cannot make payments at the current tariff without receiving additional premium and that the compensation is limited to the policy amount’, it has been definite that the contrary views have no legal basis.