The second section of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 contains provisions on jurisdiction. Jurisdiction rules are divided into general jurisdiction rules and special jurisdiction rules, and Article 15 regulates jurisdiction rules in cases arising from insurance contracts. The text of the law states: ‘Actions arising from damage insurance may be brought at the location of the property if the insurance relates to immovable property or movable property that must or is required to be fixed in a particular place; if it relates to movable property that does not have to be fixed in a particular place or is not required to be fixed in a particular place, the action may also be brought at the place where the risk occurred.’ This provision aims to determine the competent court based on the specific circumstances of the case.
The insurance contract is defined in Article 1401 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102. According to the provision, an insurance contract is ‘a contract whereby the insurer undertakes, in return for a premium, to compensate for the loss of a person’s pecuniary interest caused by the occurrence of a risk or danger, or to pay a sum of money or perform other acts due to the life span of one or more persons or certain events occurring in their lives.’ According to this provision, the insurer agrees to insure the insured’s property or bodily injury against possible risks in exchange for a certain premium. Evaluating this provision, an insurance contract must contain both risk and benefit elements. For this reason, an insurance contract is based on a relationship of mutual trust between the insurer and the insured.
In this case, if the value in question relates to movable property or a value that does not necessarily remain fixed, it appears that the legislator has granted the applicant two options in terms of jurisdiction. If the case concerns movable property, the court where the insured value suffered damage may have jurisdiction. However, if the case concerns immovable property, the court where the property is located shall be deemed to have jurisdiction.
In this case, where discretionary jurisdiction exists, it is important that the jurisdiction does not relate to public policy. This is because, in this case, if the party wishing to raise an objection to jurisdiction does not assert its claim in the preliminary objections, the issue of jurisdiction will not be assessed ex officio by the court. Where jurisdiction does not relate to public policy, an objection to jurisdiction not raised by the parties in the preliminary objections is preclusive.
While the first paragraph establishes the rule of optional jurisdiction, the second paragraph provides that ‘in life insurance cases, the court of the place of residence of the insured, the policyholder or the beneficiary shall have exclusive jurisdiction in cases brought for or against them,’ thus making a distinction for life insurance. Failure to comply with exclusive jurisdiction will also result in the case being dismissed on procedural grounds.
The definition of life insurance covers events related to human life. Risks related to human life include events such as a person falling ill, dying, having an accident, becoming unable to work due to the disablement of a limb, or ageing. Life insurance policies with survival or death conditions, pension insurance, health insurance, and personal accident insurance can be considered types of life insurance.
The legislator has determined that marine insurance shall not be considered within this scope by virtue of the provision in the third paragraph. In this case, the provisions of Article 15 cannot be applied in cases concerning marine insurance.