Zen Law Partners | Legal Review
In recent years, heavy rainfall in Istanbul exceeding seasonal norms, combined with the city’s chronic infrastructure deficiencies, has increasingly resulted in flooding and inundation. Motor vehicles swept away by floodwaters or rendered unusable after being completely submerged on major roads, underpasses, streets adjacent to stream beds and parking areas give rise to serious property loss and compensation disputes.
Disputes involving vehicle owners who have suffered damage, comprehensive motor insurers and parking operators are subject to a multi-layered liability regime at the intersection of insurance law, administrative law and the law of obligations.
1. Compensation for Vehicle Damage from the Perspective of Insurance Law
When a vehicle is damaged as a result of flooding or inundation, the first avenue of recourse is generally the applicable insurance policy. In practice, however, vehicle owners frequently confuse compulsory motor third-party liability insurance with comprehensive motor insurance.
Compulsory Motor Third-Party Liability Insurance
Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance, which must be obtained pursuant to Highway Traffic Law No. 2918, covers bodily injury and property damage caused by the vehicle operator to third parties. Therefore, damage sustained by the insured vehicle itself as a result of flooding, torrent or water inundation falls outside the scope of compulsory motor liability insurance. The vehicle owner cannot claim compensation from their own compulsory traffic insurance for such damage.
Comprehensive Motor Insurance and Flood Coverage
A vehicle owner’s ability to claim directly from their own insurer depends on the existence of a valid Motor Vehicle Comprehensive Insurance Policy and the scope of that policy. Under the General Conditions of Motor Vehicle Comprehensive Insurance, “flood and torrent” are among the risks that may be included within the coverage by additional agreement. In practice, flood and water inundation coverage is commonly included in “Extended Comprehensive Insurance” or “Full Comprehensive Insurance” packages; however, such coverage may be excluded from more limited “Narrow Comprehensive Insurance” policies.
Total Loss (Pert-Total) and Scrap Registration Certificate
Where water enters the engine and electronic systems, damage such as cracking of the engine block and oxidation of the transmission and electronic control units may render the vehicle irreparable or make repair economically unreasonable. If the repair costs exceed the market value of the vehicle on the date of the insured event, the total loss (pert-total) regime becomes applicable.
Pursuant to Article B.3.3.2.2 of the General Conditions of Comprehensive Motor Insurance, where repair costs exceed the market value of the vehicle and an expert report determines that repair is not economically viable, submission to the insurer of a scrap registration certificate showing that the vehicle has been taken off the road in accordance with Article 30 of the Highway Traffic Regulation is a legal prerequisite for payment of total loss compensation.
Indeed, in its judgment dated 31.01.2022, File No. 2021/6882, Decision No. 2022/1123, the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation expressly emphasized that, where compensation is awarded on the basis of a total loss calculation following flood damage, submission of a registration document showing that the vehicle has been classified as scrap must be required.
Within the scope of the rights arising from the insurance policy, the vehicle owner may apply to the Insurance Arbitration Commission or file a claim before the Commercial Court of First Instance.
2. Liability of the Administration: Service Fault and the “Force Majeure” Defence
Vehicle owners without comprehensive motor insurance may apply directly to the relevant public authority, while comprehensive insurers that have paid compensation to their insured may, pursuant to Article 1472 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 and the principle of subrogation, pursue recourse claims against the relevant administration, including the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, İSKİ, district municipalities or the General Directorate of Highways.
The liability of the administration is based on the principle set out in the final paragraph of Article 125 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye: “The administration is liable to compensate for damage arising from its own acts and actions.”
Statutory Duties of İSKİ and Municipalities
Pursuant to Article 2(b) of Law No. 2560 on the Establishment and Duties of the Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration General Directorate:
“The collection of used water and rainwater, their removal from residential areas and their safe conveyance to the place of discharge…”
is expressly defined as falling within the statutory duties and authority of İSKİ.
Similarly, Articles 14 and 15 of Municipal Law No. 5393 and Article 7 of Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216 designate the operation of urban infrastructure, water and sewerage services, the establishment of rainwater drainage channels and their maintenance as core obligations of local administrations.
Legal Limits of the “Natural Disaster / Force Majeure” Defence
In litigation, administrative authorities almost invariably rely on arguments such as “extraordinary meteorological conditions”, “excessive rainfall”, “natural disaster” and therefore “force majeure”, claiming that such events break the chain of causation. However, higher administrative court jurisprudence does not accept this defence categorically.
In its precedent-setting decision dated 16.04.2025, File No. 2023/3754, Decision No. 2025/3751, the 8th Chamber of the Council of State established the following principles concerning the limits of administrative liability for vehicle damage caused by excessive rainfall and flooding:
- There Is No Automatic Exemption: It is unlawful to reject a claim on the assumption that public services were properly performed and that every instance of excessive rainfall automatically constitutes force majeure, without conducting any investigation.
- A Faulty Administration Cannot Hide Behind a Disaster: Even where rainfall reaches the level of a natural disaster, if public services falling within the administration’s responsibility—such as culvert cleaning, rainwater drainage lines, manhole and grate maintenance, and stream rehabilitation—were not carried out in a timely and proper manner and this contributed to the occurrence or aggravation of the damage, an administrative service fault exists.
- A Meteorological Engineer Must Be Included in the Expert Panel: In order to determine whether the rainfall was extraordinary, assess recurrence flow calculations for the area and examine the capacity of the relevant infrastructure, the court-appointed expert panel must include a meteorological engineer.
- The Chain of Causation Is Not Necessarily Completely Broken: If the natural disaster does not entirely break the causal link, the severity of the natural event may justify an equitable reduction in the administration’s degree of liability; however, it does not necessarily result in complete dismissal of the claim.
3. Liability of Indoor/Outdoor Parking Facilities, Shopping Centres and Custodial Parking Operators
Another area frequently affected by floodwaters is underground parking facilities of shopping centres, enclosed garages of residential complexes and paid open-air parking areas.
Pursuant to Article 561 et seq. of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, leaving a vehicle in a parking facility constitutes, in legal terms, a contract of deposit. The operator is required to act as a prudent merchant under Article 18/2 of the Turkish Commercial Code and must safeguard and protect the vehicle entrusted to it against all foreseeable risks.
- failure to keep water drainage pumps operational,
- absence of generator backup,
- failure to construct parking entrance barriers and water-blocking thresholds,
- failure to provide vehicle owners with early evacuation warnings despite meteorological alerts
may give rise to the contractual liability of the parking operator. In such cases, the vehicle owner may bring a claim for material damages directly against the parking operator before the competent civil court, which may be a consumer court or commercial court depending on the circumstances.
4. Procedural Steps and Time Limits That Must Be Observed
Bringing a full remedy action against the administration is subject to strict procedural rules. In order to avoid loss of rights, the following steps should be followed:
Step 1: Preservation of Evidence
Immediately after the flood, before the vehicle is moved or cleaned, an incident report should be prepared by law enforcement authorities and, where available, a fire brigade report should be obtained.
Without delay, an application should also be made to the competent Civil Court of Peace for preservation of evidence pursuant to Article 400 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, so that the water level inside the vehicle, mud marks, electronic damage and any loss in market value can be recorded by an expert.
Step 2: Mandatory Preliminary Application to the Administration (Article 13 of İYUK)
Pursuant to Article 13/1 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), a direct administrative action cannot be filed immediately for compensation arising from administrative acts.
Persons who have suffered damage are required to apply in writing to the relevant administration, such as the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality or İSKİ, and request compensation:
- within 1 year from the date on which they learned of the act and the resulting damage,
- and in any event within 5 years from the date of the act.
Step 3: Time Limit for Filing the Action
The administration must respond to the application within 30 days. If the administration expressly rejects the application, a full remedy action must be filed before the competent Administrative Court within 60 days from notification of the rejection. If the administration fails to respond within 30 days and the application is deemed implicitly rejected, the 60-day filing period begins to run from the expiry of that 30-day period pursuant to Articles 7 and 13 of İYUK.
Legal Decisions and Legislative Sources
- Council of State, 8th Chamber, File No. 2023/3754, Decision No. 2025/3751, dated 16.04.2025
Decision Text Link
Decision holding that the force majeure defence cannot be accepted categorically in cases of vehicle damage caused by excessive rainfall and flooding, and that any administrative infrastructure service fault must be examined by an expert panel including a meteorological engineer. - Court of Cassation, 4th Civil Chamber, File No. 2021/6882, Decision No. 2022/1123, dated 31.01.2022
Decision Text Link
Decision concerning payment of compensation for total loss of a comprehensively insured vehicle following flood damage, subject to submission of a scrap registration certificate. - Article 13 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK)
Provisions governing the mandatory preliminary application to the administration and the time limits for filing compensation actions arising from administrative acts. - Article 2 of Law No. 2560 on İSKİ
Provisions concerning İSKİ’s statutory responsibility for the collection and removal of rainwater.
In flood incidents occurring in Istanbul, it is crucial for vehicle owners who suffer damage to preserve technical evidence and comply with all applicable limitation and procedural periods when pursuing claims against their comprehensive motor insurer or bringing full remedy actions against the administration.
1. Council of State, 8th Chamber, File No. 2023/3754, Decision No. 2025/3751, dated 16.04.2025
- Subject Matter of the Dispute: A recourse claim by a comprehensive motor insurer seeking reimbursement of TRY 433,825.19 paid for damage to a vehicle that was flooded while parked in the indoor parking area of a business plaza in Etimesgut, Ankara, from the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality and ASKİ General Directorate on the basis of administrative service fault.
- Judicial Process and Decision: The first-instance administrative court and the Regional Administrative Court rejected the claim on the ground that the rainfall constituted a “meteorological natural disaster (force majeure)” and broke the chain of causation. The 8th Chamber of the Council of State, however, overturned the decision.
- Core Principle of the Decision: The Council of State stated that “it is not possible to categorically accept that every natural disaster automatically breaks the causal link between the damage and the administrative act… Although damage caused by rainfall reaching the scale of a natural disaster may be unavoidable, the failure to perform public services falling within the administration’s responsibility in a timely and proper manner may also contribute to the occurrence of that damage during the disaster.” The Court further held that in such flood-related disputes, the expert panel must include a meteorological engineer.
2. Court of Cassation, 4th Civil Chamber, File No. 2021/6882, Decision No. 2022/1123, dated 31.01.2022
- Subject Matter of the Dispute: A dispute brought before the Insurance Arbitration Commission for compensation for damage sustained by a comprehensively insured vehicle as a result of heavy rainfall and flooding.
- Core Principle of the Decision: The Court of Cassation held that where a comprehensively insured vehicle is determined to have sustained a total loss (pert-total) as a result of flood damage, payment of compensation to the vehicle owner must be made subject to submission of a document confirming that the vehicle has been classified as scrap, pursuant to Article B.3.3.2.2 of the General Conditions of Comprehensive Motor Insurance and Article 30 of the Highway Traffic Regulation.
3. Statutory Basis
- Article 13 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK): A mandatory procedural rule requiring a written application to the administration within 1 year from the date on which the damage became known and, in any event, within 5 years from the date of the administrative act, and regulating the applicable filing periods.
- Article 2/b of Law No. 2560 on İSKİ: The statutory provision expressly assigning to the İSKİ General Directorate in Istanbul the duty to “collect used water and rainwater, remove them from residential areas and safely convey them to the place of discharge…”
16.10.2026
Atty. İREM ŞİROLU
