Vehicle Diminution in Value After an Accident: Insurance Claims in Türkiye

A properly repaired vehicle may have a lower second-hand market value because of its accident history and repairs. The compensable diminution is the difference attributable to the accident between the vehicle's pre-accident market value and its market value after repair, assessed with reference to conditions at the accident date.

This is different from the repair bill and from the cost of being without the vehicle. Repair alone does not necessarily compensate the market loss, but an accident record does not automatically establish a positive loss of a fixed amount in every vehicle.

Under Road Traffic Act Articles 85 and 91, the operator's relevant liability is subject to compulsory motor third-party liability insurance. Claims against the driver, operator and insurer rest on their respective legal bases, with the insurer's obligation subject to applicable coverage and limits.

• The claimant's own fault: Article 92(g) excludes the corresponding part of compensation from compulsory cover. Fault and causal contribution must be established.
• Withdrawal from traffic or scrapping due to damage: Article 92(l) excludes diminution claims for the specified vehicles. A total-loss settlement and a repaired-vehicle diminution claim must not duplicate the same damage.
• Indirect losses: Article 92(k) excludes items such as lost income, profit, business interruption and loss of rental use from compulsory cover. A legally justified claim against the responsible driver or operator, or separate voluntary cover, is a different issue.
• Non-pecuniary damage: Article 92(f) excludes this from compulsory motor liability cover.

Whether repair is economical and whether a vehicle is technically and legally treated as a total loss require the applicable assessment. A repair-cost comparison alone should not be presented as every current administrative total-loss criterion. Where the damaged vehicle or salvage remains with the claimant, its value and earlier payments matter to avoiding double recovery.

For a purely hypothetical loss of TRY 20,000 with 25% contributory fault, applying only that fault reduction gives TRY 15,000 before other coverage, proof and payment issues. It is not an estimate for any actual file.

The assessment should explain the market comparison rather than simply multiply a vehicle value by an unexplained fixed percentage. Relevant factors include make, model, age, mileage, equipment, earlier damage, the newly affected components, repairs and the second-hand market at the accident date.

Prior damage does not justify assuming either that every later accident produces a fresh loss or that the vehicle can never suffer further diminution. The additional effect of the particular damage must be assessed.

• Keep dated accident photographs, the damage assessment and repair invoices.
• Identify painted, repaired and replaced components accurately.
• Retain mileage and earlier damage information.
• Use genuinely comparable market material; listing prices are not automatically completed sale prices.
• Ask for an expert calculation whose assumptions, method and deductions can be reviewed.

In Yargıtay 4th Civil Chamber, E.2023/3731, K.2025/1533, 3 February 2025, the dispute concerned voluntary liability cover after compulsory-policy payments. The Court upheld the decision and accepted the expert's pre-accident versus repaired-market-value criterion. This does not mean every voluntary policy has the same coverage.

Article 97 requires a written application to the relevant compulsory motor liability insurer before bringing the covered claim through court proceedings. Identify the policy and accident, explain the diminution claimed and submit the relevant supporting documents through an official channel, keeping proof of receipt.

If the insurer does not reply in writing within 15 days, or its response does not satisfy the claim and a dispute remains, the claimant may consider litigation or insurance arbitration subject to the requirements of the chosen route. An inadequate final response and silence are distinct situations; a claimant should not assume an unnecessary further waiting period after every final refusal.

The Insurance Arbitration Commission's official guidance distinguishes 15 days for traffic insurance from the general 15 working days for other branches. The wording of Insurance Act Article 30(13) should therefore be read with the special traffic rule and the applicable claim type.

For compulsory insurance, the absence of insurer membership does not itself prevent access to the statutory arbitration mechanism under Article 30(1), subject to the applicable temporal and other requirements. Membership, policy dates and scope require separate attention for voluntary cover.

An old judgment discussing interest where no insurer application had been made is not permission to disregard today's pre-application requirement. Court jurisdiction, any separate mandatory mediation requirement and procedural admissibility must also be checked.

1. Identify the other vehicle, driver, operator and relevant insurance policy.
2. Prepare the accident report, photographs, registration information and available fault material.
3. Add repair invoices, parts lists, expert reports and evidence supporting diminution.
4. State the requested loss clearly and provide the necessary claimant and payment information through the insurer's official channel.
5. Retain the full submission, delivery acknowledgement and insurer's final response or proof of no response.
6. Before choosing a forum, check fees, representation costs, competence, coverage, limitation and the effect of an existing case.

Article 30(14) restricts Commission applications for disputes already referred to the specified court or consumer-dispute body. Do not assume parallel court and Commission proceedings are freely available for the same dispute.

Arbitration application fees and objection or appeal thresholds can change. Consult the Commission's current official guidance rather than an old monetary figure in a case summary.

Under Article 99, an insurer must pay covered amounts within the applicable limit within eight working days after receiving the documents required by the compulsory insurance general conditions. The completeness and receipt of the relevant documents matter.

This payment period is different from the 15-day response rule for escalation under Article 97. Insurer default and interest must be calculated using the correct receipt date, business days and the actual submission; they do not simply begin at the accident for every insurer.

The driver and operator's tort-based default is assessed separately, including Code of Obligations Article 117(2). The applicable interest type, rate and any payments require their own evaluation.

In Yargıtay 17th Civil Chamber, E.2016/6839, K.2016/8361, 29 September 2016, the Court required a proper market-value assessment and examination of insurer notification and the eight-working-day period. Its discussion of default without a prior application concerned the historical file and must not be confused with the current procedural precondition.

The 2026 addition to Code of Obligations Article 55 addresses the specified loss of earning capacity and loss of support, not vehicle diminution as a new category of interest commencement. It should not be transferred to property-damage claims merely because they arise from a traffic accident.

Road Traffic Act Article 109 ordinarily provides two years from knowledge of the damage and the person liable, and in any event ten years from the accident, for the specified property-damage compensation claims.

Where the claim arises from an act punishable as an offence and criminal law provides a longer limitation period, paragraph (2) provides for that longer period. Its conditions must be established; every minor property-only collision should not automatically be assigned a longer criminal period.

Interruption and suspension require separate assessment. Article 109 also links interruption against the person liable and the insurer. Do not assume that simply sending the insurer an application preserves every limitation period.

Increasing a claim later can create limitation issues depending on the form of action, the original claim and procedure. A historical amendment-of-claim decision is not a universal rule for every unquantified claim. Check the intended court or arbitration procedure before relying on an increase.

Repair costs and diminution may draw on the relevant property-damage cover. Identify the policy period and applicable per-vehicle and per-accident limits, other claims, earlier payments and the remaining cover. An insurer's limit does not necessarily extinguish a properly established balance against the responsible driver or operator.

Voluntary liability cover, often called İMM, can be relevant above compulsory cover, but its insured risks, exclusions, sublimits and attachment conditions must be read. It is not an automatic payment source for every balance.

Your own casco insurance is a separate contract. Repair cover does not automatically include diminution in value; an additional clause and its limits may be necessary. Do not confuse an İMM section in a combined policy with cover for your own vehicle's diminution.

Releases, settlement documents, salvage arrangements and payments should be checked before accepting a final settlement. The same loss cannot be recovered twice from different parties.

• Road Traffic Act No. 2918: Articles 85, 90–92, 97, 99 and 109.
• Insurance Act No. 5684: Article 30.
• Code of Obligations No. 6098: Articles 49–52, 55 and 117.
• Insurance Arbitration Commission: how to apply.
• Insurance Arbitration Commission: official FAQ.
• Official Court of Cassation decision search: 4th Civil Chamber, E.2023/3731, K.2025/1533, 03.02.2025; 17th Civil Chamber, E.2016/6839, K.2016/8361, 29.09.2016.

The two decisions discussed above were read in their specific factual and procedural context. Older limits, amounts and procedural circumstances are not current figures or rules for every claim.