Av. Enes ALİŞ, LL.M.
1. JURISDICTION
In order to resolve disputes in our legal system, different judicial branches are organized within the judicial organization according to their qualifications. Accordingly, each dispute must be resolved in the appropriate jurisdiction according to its nature. If a case of an administrative nature is filed incorrectly in a civil court or in an administrative court in a civil court, the defendant may object to judicial review at any stage of the case, and the court may also issue a decision of lack of jurisdiction ex officio.[1].
In Article 110 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918, page 6099. Article 14 of the law has been amended and, as of 19.01.2011, when the law came into force, 2918 p. Liability cases arising from the KTK will be heard in the judicial judiciary and these provisions will also be applied if the injured party is a public official. In addition, there are 2918 pages regarding accidents occurring at level crossings. The provisions of the KTK will be applied and liability cases arising from these accidents will be heard in judicial courts. With this regulation, it was tried to prevent different interpretations and jurisprudence and the resulting different practices.[2]. However, it is necessary to pay attention to situations that may differ in each concrete case, such as the place and manner of the accident. Because, 2918 p. KTK will find application for accidents that occur on highways and in traffic patterns. For other cases, the determination of the jurisdiction will vary depending on the concrete case.[3].
2.TASK
1086 pages. During the HUMK period, cases arising from property law, whose amount and value did not exceed the amount determined by law, were heard in the civil court of peace, and those above this amount were heard in the civil court of first instance (HUMK article 8). 6100 pages With the HMK, this limitation was eliminated and the court of general jurisdiction became the Civil Courts of First Instance exclusively. However, the debate on the competent court for claims arising from traffic accidents is not limited to this.
The principle of succession of the insurer, TCC art. Article TTK, which was regulated in 1472 and subjects regulated in the TTK will be considered commercial cases. Since it is stated in Article 4/1, it has been put forward in the doctrine that the recourse lawsuit filed by the insurer should be qualified as an absolute commercial lawsuit and that these lawsuits should be heard in commercial courts.[4]. The opposing view is; He argued that the case should be tried in the Civil Courts of First Instance, since the tort that causes damage to the injured party does not generally arise from a business of a commercial nature, and even if the parties are merchants, the damage arises from the tort in the TCO.[5]. The 17th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals has jurisprudence with two different views on duty.[6]. A third view argues that only recourse cases regarding situations where both parties are merchants and concern the commercial enterprise should be heard in commercial courts within the scope of relative commercial litigation.[7].
Another controversial issue is that if the action of the compensation debtor also constitutes a crime, the insured may request compensation for his damage by filing a personal lawsuit before the Criminal Court or participating in a public lawsuit, during the continuation of the criminal case. Can the insurer that pays the insurance compensation take advantage of the powers granted by the TCK and the CMK to the person injured by the crime through subrogation and file the recourse case in criminal courts instead of civil courts? In the doctrine, OMAĞ argued that the concept of crime victim should be interpreted broadly and that there is no harm in including the insurer within its boundaries.[8].
Apart from all these, there are opinions and decisions that the labor court and consumer court are responsible for in some specific cases.
2.1. Situations in which the Labor Court is Responsible
2.1. Situations in which the Labor Court is Responsible
5510 pages According to Article 13 of the Law; ''Work Accident'': ''a) While the insured is at the workplace, b) Due to the work carried out by the employer, if the insured is working independently on his own behalf and account, due to the work he is carrying out, c) While the insured is working under an employer, while working outside the workplace, d) During the times spent without performing the main job due to being sent somewhere, d) During the times reserved for breastfeeding the child by the breastfeeding female insured within the scope of subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 4 of this Law, in accordance with the labor legislation, e) Insured persons traveling to the place of work with a vehicle provided by the employer Events that occur during the arrival and cause the insured to become physically or mentally disabled immediately or later. defined as[9].
5510 pages According to Article 101 of the Law "In cases where there is no provision to the contrary in this Law, disputes arising from the implementation of the provisions of this Law are heard in labor courts." It is stated that the Labor Court will have jurisdiction in disputes arising from the implementation of any provision in the text of the Law.
Accordingly, in order for the Labor Court to have jurisdiction in a case arising from a traffic-work accident, 1-) The parties to the dispute must be the employee and the employer (or the employer's representative). 2-) The dispute arises from the employment contract or the Labor Law[10]. However, in the doctrine, it is argued that if the worker and the rights holders have sued only the third party, this case cannot be sent to the Labor Court with a decision of lack of jurisdiction, since there is no contract between the worker and the third party, and the Civil Court of First Instance has jurisdiction.[11].
2.2. Situations in which the Consumer Court is Responsible
6502 pages. In article 3/1-l of the TKHK ‘’tüketici işlemi’’: Work, transportation, brokerage, established between consumers and real or legal persons acting for commercial or professional purposes, or acting on their behalf or on their account, including public legal entities in the goods or service markets, InsuranceIt refers to all kinds of contracts and legal transactions, including power of attorney, banking and similar contracts. şeklinde tanımlamıştır.
Again, in article 73/1 of the same law "Consumer courts are responsible for cases regarding disputes that may arise from consumer transactions and consumer-oriented practices." It is stated that Consumer Courts will be responsible for all kinds of consumer transactions, including insurance contracts.
In a decision of the Court of Cassation on this matter ''... in the concrete dispute, the plaintiff is the insurer and the defendant insured is the consumer, and the insurance contract concluded between the parties is a consumer transaction. Therefore, this dispute arising from a consumer transaction should be heard by the Consumer Court.'' that the Consumer Courts have jurisdiction[12].
3. AUTHORITY
HMK m.5: ''The jurisdiction of the courts shall be subject to the provisions of this Law, without prejudice to the provisions of other laws relating to jurisdiction.'' as follows. Accordingly, Article 110 of the TCC shall be taken as a rule in determining the competent court. The aforementioned article states that lawsuits regarding civil liability due to motor vehicle accidents may be filed in one of the courts of the place where the insurance company's head office, branch office or the agency concluding the insurance contract is located, as well as in the court of the place where the accident occurred. The same point is repeated in Article C.7 of the general conditions of the
The general jurisdiction provisions of Article 6 of the CCP shall also apply to the subrogation action to be filed by the insurer against the responsible party. Accordingly, the general competent court is the court of the defendant's domicile. If there is more than one defendant, the subrogation action may be filed before the court of domicile of one of them. However, if there is a court with common jurisdiction for more than one defendant, the case shall be heard by the court of that place (Article 7/1 of the CCP). If the traffic accident constitutes a tort, the court where the traffic accident occurred is deemed to be the court of joint jurisdiction for all defendants, and the recourse action may be filed there (Art. 16 of the CCP). The only condition for this is that the lawsuit must not have been filed in bad faith with the aim of taking one of the defendants to a court other than its own court[13]. If the bad faith specified in the law is in question; this case is separated from the other case by issuing a decision of lack of jurisdiction[14].
Since the ICCS is within the scope of loss insurances, the insurer may also file a lawsuit at the place where the risk, i.e. the accident, occurs, according to Article 15 of the CCP.
In the event that the insurance company files the subrogation action before an unauthorized court, since Article 110 of the TCC does not introduce a definitive jurisdiction rule concerning public order, the court cannot ex officio examine whether it has jurisdiction or not, and cannot issue a decision of lack of jurisdiction, unless the opposing party raises a jurisdiction objection with its reply petition, since the objection of jurisdiction is the first objection (Art. 116,117 CCP). In this case, an implied jurisdiction agreement is deemed to have been concluded between the parties and the court, which was originally without jurisdiction, is authorized[15].
4. PARTIES IN A RECOURSE CASE
4.1. Plaintiff Party
As a rule, the right to initiate a subrogation action belongs to the insurer who paid the insurance indemnity (TCC Art. 1472). Upon the realization of the insurer's subrogation, the insured's right of action against the indemnity debtor is extinguished and this right of action passes ex lege (by operation of law) to the insurer[16]. If the insured has filed a lawsuit for indemnity and the insurer's subrogation occurs during the pendency of this lawsuit, the insurer is not obliged to file a new subrogation lawsuit and the lawsuit filed by the insured is continued (Art. 125/2 of the CCP).[17]In this case, the insurer should not be obliged to pay fees again and should be able to benefit from the evidence collected up to that point. Because, since the rights obtained by the insured during the lawsuit can be regarded as additional rights within the meaning of Article 168/1 of the TCO, it is natural that these rights pass to the insurer through subrogation. Consequently, since the insurer, who has the claim ex lege, continues the lawsuit from where it left off, it cannot request the repetition of the previous proceedings[18].
If the reinsurer makes the necessary payments to the insurers pursuant to the reinsurance agreement, it will be able to file a recourse action by utilizing Article 1472 of the TCC. In the event of the insurer's bankruptcy, the bankruptcy administration, as the legal representative of the bankruptcy estate, will be authorized to file a subrogation action. It is possible for the insurer to assign its indemnity claim through legal subrogation (Art. 183 TCO). In case of assignment, the assignee may file a subrogation action[19].
4.2. Respondent Party
As a rule, in a subrogation action, the hostility is directed against the person who caused the damage. If there are others responsible for the damage, the recourse action may also be brought against them[20]Those who are jointly liable to the insured are also jointly liable to the insurer as successors[21]. Those responsible for the damage may be natural or legal persons. The insurer may also have recourse to the state, which is a public law legal entity[22].
In the event of the bankruptcy of the defendant, the authority to pursue lawsuits regarding the goods and rights belonging to the bankruptcy estate does not belong to the bankrupt, but to the bankruptcy administration, which is the legal representative of the bankrupt. In the event of the death of the defendant, the insurer may bring a claim for compensation arising before the death of the defendant against the heirs who did not reject the inheritance in due time and in accordance with the procedure[23]. If there is more than one responsible person against the insured, the insurer may file a subrogation action against these persons according to the principles of joint and several liability[24].
5. DIFFERENCE OF THE RIGHT OF RECOURSE FROM SUBROGATION
A person who pays a debt belonging to another person may substitute him/her on the basis of a provision of law (ex lege). succession is called assignment. It differs from assignment of receivables in that the receivable is transferred by law and not by contract[25]. Right of recourse is a right of claim in the nature of compensation for the loss of the assets of the person who fulfills an obligation belonging to another person[26]. In the event that the insurance company exercises this right through litigation, the lawsuit to be filed recourse case It is said[27].
The right of subrogation arises from the relationship between the person who satisfies the creditor on behalf of the debtor (the insurer) and the creditor, i.e. the external relationship. The right of subrogation, on the other hand, arises from the relationship between the principal debtor and the person who satisfies the creditor (the insurer) by making a sacrifice by fulfilling its obligation, i.e. the internal relationship[28].
In subrogation, the successor (the insurer) does not acquire a new right as soon as it satisfies the injured creditor. It takes over the right belonging to the creditor by operation of law (ex lege)[29]. With this transfer, all primary and secondary rights attached to the receivable also pass to the successor party (the insurer). Thus, the insurer may file all lawsuits that the insured may file against the persons who caused the damage and use its rights to claim compensation for the damage incurred[30]. The statute of limitations, which starts to run from the moment the receivable becomes due, continues to run with succession.
Regarding recourse; The person (insurer) who satisfies the creditor does not inherit a right belonging to the creditor he satisfies; He acquires a new right arising from his own person, independent of the creditor's right. As a result, the right of recourse becomes due as soon as it arises in the person of the person who has this right, and a new statute of limitations begins to run.[31].
The successor has wider opportunities than the person who has the right of recourse. In order to exercise the right of recourse, it is not sufficient to simply prove that performance has been made to the creditor; It must also prove the legal reason that constitutes the basis for recourse. In subrogation, the person making the payment is, as a rule, content to prove only the payment.[32].
The existence of the right of recourse does not necessarily mean that there is succession. If the legislator wants to strengthen the right of recourse through succession, it must clearly state this in the law. In cases not specified by law, there is a right of recourse, but there is no succession.[33]. In other words, while every successor has the right of recourse, not every person who has the right of recourse has the right of subrogation.[34]. In all these cases, subrogation is not an end in itself, but a means to realize the right of recourse.[35].
6. DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE INSURER'S RIGHT OF REFERENCE BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECTION
6.1. Opinion Rejecting the Insurer's Right of Recourse
The view that rejects the right of recourse to the person who incurred the damage after the insurer becomes successor to the rights of the insured puts forward the following reasons:
The insurance contract is valid between the parties and has no effect on third parties. By paying the insured's damage, the insurer fulfills its contractual obligation.[36]. Therefore, he cannot impose this debt on someone else. The loss paid by the insurer constitutes the compensation for the premiums received from the insured.[37].
The insurer does not suffer any loss by paying the insured's damage. By signing the insurance contract, the insurer has taken the possibility of the risk occurring. Because it determines the premium based on certain statistics when making an insurance contract. If the insured has made a good calculation and taken the necessary precautions, not only will the insured suffer a loss by paying the damage, he can also make a profit.[38].
The insurance contract is a contract that depends on chance and luck; it is not known when and how the risk will occur. There are chances of gains and losses for both parties[39]. If the insurer is given the right to claim the amount paid to a third party through recourse, the insurance contract ceases to be a contingent contract; In this case, an imbalance occurs between the provisions of the insurance contract and the insurer receives from the third party the other hand what it gives to the insured in one hand.[40].
6.2. Opinion Accepting the Insurer's Right of Recourse
The view that accepts the insurer's right of recourse to the person who incurred the damage after the insurer becomes successor to the rights of the insured, puts forward the following reasons:
The right of recourse granted to the insurer is taken into account in the calculation of premiums. Thanks to the existence of the right of recourse, premiums decrease and the insurance institution spreads among the society.[41].
f the insurer is not granted the right of subrogation, the injured party will benefit. Because after the insured has compensated his loss from the insurer, he can no longer recourse to the person who caused the damage; because the perpetrator of the damage can claim that his damage has been covered by the insurer and therefore his damage is no longer in question. The insurer, on the other hand, will not be able to hold the perpetrator responsible because it has no right of recourse, and as a result, the perpetrator of the damage will benefit from this.[42]. However, such a result would result in a kind of reward for the careless and negligent behavior of third parties, which is obviously contrary to equity.[43].
Thanks to the insurer's right of recourse, the insured is prevented from receiving two compensations for the same loss. In this way, the "prohibition of enrichment" that prevails in loss insurance is implemented. Since intentional damage is prevented, public order and national wealth are protected.[44].
The recognition of the principle of subrogation and recourse does not change the nature of the insurance contract as a contingent contract. The insurer sometimes calculates the probability of the risk arising, and sometimes adjusts itself when the date of the risk is unknown. The insurer determines the premiums by taking into account the compensation it will pay to the insured and the amount it will obtain through subrogation. Therefore, the insurer's right of recourse does not result in the compensation being given to one hand and taken back from the other hand.[45].
7. LEGAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RECRUITMENT CASE
In terms of its nature, the insurer's recourse action is a "performance action". Because with this lawsuit, the defendant (compensation debtor) is obliged to pay the performance of a certain act against the plaintiff (insurer).[46]. It is also a "personal (relative)" case. Because the subject of this case constitutes a personal right, such as a claim for compensation that can be claimed against certain persons.[47]. In other words, the insurer, TMK art. 6 and Article 50 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, it will be necessary to prove that an unlawful act has been committed, the fault of the compensation debtor, the causal link between the act and the damage, and that he will receive compensation.[48].
8. PROOF IN REMEMBER CASES
In a recourse lawsuit, the insurer must first of all prove that it has made a payment to the main creditor (the injured party) and that it has the right to file a lawsuit as its successor. Some writers on the doctrine have argued that the insurer can prove that it has paid with any kind of evidence.[49]. The opposing view is that the payment is a legal transaction, and in case of a payment above the limit specified in the law, it is within the scope of HMK Art. It points out that there is no situation that would require departure from the main rule that requires proof of ownership according to Article 200, in terms of the payment made by the insurer.[50].
Apart from this, the insurer files the recourse lawsuit as the successor of the insured. In accordance with the principle of subrogation, it must be subject to the provisions to which the insured is subject in terms of proof of the claim.[51]. In other words, the insurer, TMK art. 6 and Article 50 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, it will be necessary to prove that an unlawful act has been committed, the fault of the compensation debtor, the causal link between the act and the damage, and that he will receive compensation.[52]. The defenses that the insured can put forward to the person responsible for the damage or the person responsible for the damage to the insured can also be put forward by the parties in the insurer's recourse lawsuit. The rights and defenses belonging to the insured are transferred to the insurer in the same way.[53].
Claims for damages arising from tort can be proved by all kinds of evidence (Art. 203 CCP)[54]. In compensation lawsuits to be filed due to breach of contract, it is first necessary to prove the contract allegedly breached by the defendant with written evidence. If the contract is proved by written evidence, if the defendant's breach of contract is a legal act, the insurer will now be able to prove it by any evidence[55].
Another controversial issue in the doctrine is whether the insured can be heard as a witness in the subrogation action brought by the insurer against the indemnity debtor. According to the first opinion, in order to be heard as a witness, it is necessary to be a third party other than the parties of the case. Therefore, in a subrogation case, the main creditor cannot be heard as a witness since he is considered a party to the case[56]. On the other hand, the opposing opinion states that the testimony of the injured party will not harm him/her financially, as his/her damages are compensated before the subrogation case, pursuant to Article 250 of the CCP, and therefore, his/her testimony can be applied since he/she cannot be considered as a party in the subrogation case.[57]. Bunların dışında bir üçüncü görüş ise sigortalının tanık sıfatıyla dinlenebilmesinin halefiyet ilkesine aykırı olduğu kabul edilmesi halinde, rücu davasında, sigortalının bilgisine isticvap yoluyla başvurulabileceği savunulmuştur[58].
[1] Zekeriya Yılmaz, Legal Liability Arising from Traffic Accidents and Transportation, Compensation, Insurance and Recourse Cases, 3rd Edition, Ankara, Adalet Publishing House, 2014, p. 665 et seq.
[2] Uyuşmazlık Mah. (Huk. Böl.), 04.06.2013 T., E. 2012/603, K. 2013/869.
YHGK, 04.07.2012 T., E. 2012/4-261, K. 2012/441.
[3] Uyuşmazlık Mah. (Huk. Böl.), 04.06.2013 T., E. 2013/920, K. 2013/1050.
YHGK, 26.09.2012 T., E. 2012/4-336, K. 2012/620.
[4] Merih Kemal Omağ, Türk Hukukunda Sigortacının Kanuni Halefiyeti, Vedat Kitapçılık,İstanbul, 2011, s. 210; Hasan Tahsin Gökcan/ Seydi Kaymaz, Karayolları Trafik Kanununa Göre Hukuki Sorumluluk, Tazminat, Sigorta, Rücu Davaları ve Suçları, Ankara, 2008, s.269
[5] Çelik Ahmet Çelik, Traffic Accidents Tazminat ve Sigorta Hukuk ve Ceza Sorumluluğu, Ankara, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2017, pp.294-297; Ergun Orhunöz, Uygulamada Karayolları Trafik Kanununa Göre Sorumluluk, Tazminat, Sigorta, Ankara, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 1998, p.324; Abdurrahim Karslı, Usul Hukuku Açısından Rücu Davaları, İstanbul, 1994, p.102.
[6] The decisions of the Y. 17th HD dated 15.02.2013, E. 2013/702, K. 2013/1676, dated 18.03.2013, E. 2013/3064, K. 2013/3616 and dated 28.03.2013, E. 2013/3377, K. 2013/4482; As an example to the second opinion, the decisions of Y. 17th HD numbered 27.06.2013 T., E. 2013/10280, K. 2013/10151 and 31.12.2012 T., E. 2012/9255, K. 2012/15203 can be shown.
[7] Aziz Serkan Arslan, Subrogation Cases Arising from Compulsory Financial Liability Insurance, TBB Journal, S. 88, 2010, pp.213-214.
[8] Omağ, a.g.e., s. 213.
[9] Y. 10. HD, 31.01.2002 T., E. 2001/9376, K. 2002/518.
[10] Yılmaz, a.g.e., s.732-743.
[11] Çelik, a.g.e., s.299.
[12] Y. 17. HD, E. 2017/67, K. 2018/127; Ayrıca bkz. Y. 17. HD, E. 2015/10789, K. 2015/10081, Y. 17. HD, E. 2015/10528, K. 2015/9783.
[13] ''If the pending lawsuit is filed in Şişli, where all the defendants reside, it is incompatible with good faith to object to lack of jurisdiction by claiming that the accident occurred in Eyüp.'' Y. 4. HD,31.10.1996 T., E. 1996/8565, K. 1996/10514
[14] Arslan, a.g.e., s.215.
[15] Arslan, a.g.e., s. 216; Baki Kuru, Ramazan Arslan, Ejder Yılmaz, Textbook of Civil Procedural Law, 6100 sy. CPC, 25th Edition, Ankara, Yetkin Publications, 2014, pp. 156-157.
[16] Omağ, a.g.e., s. 215-216.
[17] Y. 11. HD, 19.06.1984 T., E. 1984/2632, K. 1984/3563.
[18] Omağ, a.g.e., s. 218.
[19] Omağ, a.g.e., s. 219.
[20] Y. 11. HD, 25.03.1974 T., E. 1974/119, K. 1974/1000.
[21] Y. 11. HD, 19.01.2006 T., E. 2005/205, K. 2006/266.; Y. 11. HD, 18.09.2006 T., E. 2005/8321, K. 2006/8846.
[22] Omağ, a.g.e., s.220-224.
[23] Omağ, a.g.e., s. 225.
[24] Arslan, a.g.e., s.217.
[25] Çelik, a.g.e., s. 749.
[26] Yılmaz, a.g.e., s. 1106.
[27] Halefiyet ile rücu hakkı arasındaki fark hususunda Yargıtay’ın görüşü için bkz. YHGK, 28.09.2012 T., E. 2012/4-426, K. 2012/639.
[28] Yılmaz, a.g.e., s. 1106.
[29] Mustafa Çeker, Insurance Law According to Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Revised and Expanded 15th Edition, Adana, Karahan Kitabevi, 2016, s. 165; Omağ, a.g.e., s. 52; Yılmaz a.g.e. s. 1107.
[30] Çeker, a.g.e., s. 165.
[31] Yılmaz, a.g.e., s. 1107.
[32] Ahmet Kılıçoğlu, Özel ve Sosyal Sigortalarda Halefiyet ve Rücu, AÜHFD, C. 31, S. 1, 1974, s. 397.
[33] Haluk N. Nomer, The Relationship Between Subrogation and the Right of Recourse, Especially the Role of Subrogation in the Recourse Rights of Social Insurances and Private Insurances, İHFM, C. LV, S.3, 1997, s. 249.
[34] Kılıçoğlu, a.g.e., s. 398.
[35] Yılmaz, a.g.e., s. 1108.
[36] Reşat Atabek, Subrogation and Recourse in Insurance and Social Insurance, Journal of Labor Law, 1969, S. 3, C. I, p. 233.
[37] Reha Poroy, Recourse of the Insurer to the Perpetrator of the Loss, IHFM, 1953, S. 3-4, p. 1023.
[38] Haluk Tandoğan, Compensation of Third Party Damage in Relation to Comparative Law, Especially Turkish-Swiss and German Law, Ankara, 1963, s. 58.
[39] Rayegan Kender, Türkiye'de Hususi Sigorta Hukuku, İstanbul, Fakülteler Matbaası, 1973, s. 86.
[40] Atabek, a.g.e., s. 233.
[41] Omağ, a.g.e., s. 46-47; Kender, a.g.e., s. 205; Tandoğan, a.g.e., s. 62; Kılıçoğlu, a.g.e., s. 401.; Atabek, a.g.e., s. 233
[42] Atabek, a.g.e., s. 234.
[43] Kılıçoğlu, a.g.e., s. 401; Omağ, a.g.e., s. 251.
[44] Omağ, a.g.e., s. 251.
[45] Kılıçoğlu, a.g.e., s. 401-402.
[46] Kuru, Arslan, Yılmaz, a.g.e., s. 257-258.
[47] Omağ, a.g.e., s. 187.
[48] Işıl Ulaş, Uygulamalı Sigorta Hukuku, Ankara, Turhan Kitabevi, 2010, s.219; Yılmaz, a.g.e., s. 1124.
[49] Kılıçoğlu, a.g.e., s. 418; Reşat Atabek, Sigorta Hukuku, İstanbul, Duygu Matbaası, 1950, s. 181; Ali Bozer, Sigorta Hukuku, Ankara, 1965, s. 215.
[50] Omağ, a.g.e., s. 230; Karslı, a.g.e., s. 140; Işıl Ulaş, Uygulamalı Sigorta Hukuku, Ankara, Turhan Kitabevi, 1998, s. 153.
[51] Kılıçoğlu, a.g.e., s. 418; Arslan, a.g.e., s. 217-218.
[52] Omağ, a.g.e., s. 230.
[53] Atabek, a.g.e., s. 248; Arslan, a.g.e., s. 219.
[54] Arslan, a.g.e., s. 219.
[55] Omağ, a.g.e., s. 237.
[56] Atabek, a.g.e., s. 251; Karslı, a.g.e., s. 152.
[57] Arslan, a.g.e., s. 220.
[58] Omağ, a.g.e., s. 243.