A foreign marine insurer’s recourse claim in Türkiye requires more than showing that an insurance payment was made. It must be determined which right the insurer has succeeded to, under which law and in what amount; who is liable for the loss; and within what time and before which forum the claim will be asserted. A payment made under hull and machinery or cargo insurance does not, by itself, start a new period for bringing suit against the liable third party.
What do subrogation and recourse mean in marine insurance?
In practice, recourse is a broad expression describing a person who has made a payment claiming the amount back from another liable party. Subrogation, by contrast, is the legal succession of another person to a specific claim. Once the conditions of subrogation are met, the insurer may assert in its own name the insured’s right against the liable third party. However, not everyone who makes a payment automatically acquires the same rights for every payment. The legal basis of the payment and of the transfer is determined first.
Where Turkish law applies, Article 1472 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) provides that an indemnity insurer succeeds to the insured’s rights to the extent it has paid the insurance indemnity. The insured must have a claim against the liable person, and it must be possible to establish the insurer’s succession to that claim through the payment. Where the insured has already commenced an action or enforcement proceedings, the article also contains a provision allowing the relevant action or proceedings to be continued once the payment is proved. A partial payment does not extinguish the insured’s right in respect of the uncovered portion.
The focus of this article is on claims that hull and machinery and cargo insurers bring against third parties. The subrogation of a liability insurer is addressed separately with regard to TTK 1481 and the relevant contract. A reinsurer, broker, claims administrator and payment intermediary do not hold the same legal status. A payment made within a reinsurance relationship does not, by itself, show that the reinsurer has directly succeeded to the claim of a ship or cargo interest against the third party.
Which law applies to a foreign insurer?
That a dispute is heard by a Turkish court does not mean that Turkish law will apply to the policy and to all related relationships. In a file with a foreign element, the different legal relationships are examined separately. Article 24 of Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (MÖHUK) provides the basic framework for the choice of law and the applicable law in contractual relationships; Article 34, for torts; Article 2, for the application of foreign law; and Article 8, for the statute of limitations. The relevant international conventions and special rules are also assessed separately.
The policy, the transfer of rights and the principal claim are separate questions
The first layer is the policy: to whom, and under which coverage obligation, did the insurer make the payment? The second layer is the transfer of rights: under what conditions did statutory subrogation, an assignment of claims or some other mechanism take place? The third layer is the principal claim: under which law is the carrier, shipowner, terminal or other liable party indebted? Carrying the choice of law in a single contract over to all of these relationships may lead to an erroneous result.
For example, a cargo policy governed by English law does not by itself change the bill of lading provisions on the carrier’s liability. Likewise, the effect on the insurer of the governing law or arbitration clause in the bill of lading cannot be settled on the basis of a single sentence in the policy. The clause’s validity, its attachment to the right, its incorporation into the contract and its effect on the successor’s position are examined separately. Any expert opinion submitted on foreign law, together with the relevant legislation and the texts of decisions, should be clearly identified.
A subrogation receipt and an assignment of claims are not the same document
A document titled “Subrogation receipt” may be useful in proving the payment made and the transfer of rights. However, the name of the document does not create a right that the insured does not hold. It must be read to see whether the text contains only a receipt, a statement that the rights have passed, or in addition an assignment of claims. The signatory’s authority to represent, the formality required by the applicable law and the scope of the claim that can be assigned are assessed.
Commercial goodwill payments made outside the insurance obligation also call for special attention. Payment of an amount that is not legally owed under the policy does not satisfy all the conditions of statutory subrogation merely because the word “compensation” is used. Whether there is another valid transfer of rights may be investigated separately. It should not be assumed that a general waiver or assignment text prepared afterwards resolves all problems of time limit, status and scope.
Against whom should a recourse action be brought?
Identifying the right defendant is different from finding the ship’s name or the trade brand of a group of companies. The registered owner, shipowner, ship manager, charterer, contractual carrier and actual carrier may not be the same person. If the damage to the cargo occurred at the terminal, the carriage and delivery records should show at which stage the terminal acted and in what status. An agent’s conducting of correspondence does not by itself make it the principal obligor.
The definition of the carrier in the bill of lading and the contract of carriage, the signature block, the charter link, the cargo delivery documents and the relevant company records should be read together. In a collision file, by contrast, the operating relationship on the date of the event, the conduct of the crew members, fault and causation are assessed. Notice given to, or an action brought against, the wrong group company may not preserve the time limit against the party actually liable. The defendant’s status should be clarified before the collection plan.
The right the insurer may assert is, as a rule, assessed within the limits of the principal claim on which the transfer is based. The liable party’s defenses arising from the law of carriage, objections to the calculation of the loss and the applicable limits of liability may come into play. An amount that the insurer and the insured have accepted in the claim file does not automatically bind a third party who is not a party to that agreement. The insurance payment and the third party’s liability to pay compensation are therefore calculated separately.
How are the payment and the loss proved?
A recourse file must make three links visible: the policy and the insured interest, the event and the loss, and the payment and the transfer of rights. While the expert appraisal report explains the nature of the damage, the bank document shows that the payment was made; neither performs the entire function of the other. If a policy annex or the claim reconciliation is missing, it may remain disputed to which event a figure in the payment table relates.
| Document group | Purpose of proof | Common deficiency |
|---|---|---|
| Policy, annexes and insured interest | Coverage obligation and rights holder | Having only a policy summary |
| Bank payment record and settlement of accounts | Actual payment, recipient, date and currency | Presenting an instruction as though the payment had been completed |
| Subrogation or assignment documents | The insurer’s succession to the right | Unauthorized signature or vague description of the claim |
| Survey, photographs and technical record | Cause and extent of the damage | Failure to link the damage to the carriage or the accident |
| Invoices, repair and salvage records | Net loss and values to be deducted | Omitting betterment or recovered amounts |
| Notice, delivery and notification records | Starting points of time limits, and procedure | Confusing the date of the notice with the date of the action |
If the payment was made through a broker or a claims administrator, it should be possible to trace that the money reached the ultimate rights holder. If there is more than one insurer, the shares and each insurer’s authority to claim must be shown. A change in the insurer’s name, a merger or a portfolio transfer may also require an explanation of the link between the legal entity bringing the action and the legal entity that made the payment. Belonging to the same group does not establish that link by itself.
In calculating the loss, the deductible, the co-insurance share, salvage, payments previously received from third parties and the claim remaining with the insured must be assessed together. For example, the fact that the insurer has paid 90,000 euros does not mean that the remaining amount can be collected automatically where, under the liable party’s law, only a loss of 80,000 euros can be proved. This example only shows that the payment and the principal claim may have different limits; the calculation of the partial payment and of the sharing with the insured is made separately.
Does an insurance payment start a new period for bringing suit?
The most important distinction here is between an insurer bringing an action as successor to the principal claim and a person held liable exercising a special right of recourse against another liable party. Both of these may be called recourse in everyday language. However, the starting date and the time limit may not be the same. Treating the payment date as the only calendar point may lead to missing a period that began to run earlier.
The distinction between one year and 90 days in maritime cargo claims
In carriage of goods by sea under Turkish law, TTK 1188 provides, for claims against the carrier arising from loss, damage and delay in delivery, a one-year time limit for bringing an action (hak düşürücü süre) linked to the date of delivery or the date on which delivery should have taken place. The 90-day provision in the third paragraph of the same article, on the other hand, contains the special conditions for the recourse claim of a person held liable; it is examined with regard to the payment or the notification of the action brought against that person. This provision does not automatically give all insurers a new 90 days after every insurance payment.
In a concrete example, an insurer that pays compensation eleven months after delivery of the cargo cannot rely solely on a new one-year period beginning from the payment date. The law governing the carriage relationship, the applicability of the special recourse provision, any valid extension and the arbitration clause must be examined. Calling the claim a “recourse action” does not remove the legal difference between subrogation and independent recourse.
Collision and other claims require a separate calendar
TTK 1297 provides a two-year statute of limitations, starting from the day of the collision, for compensation claims based on a collision. For certain recourse claims between shipowners in the same article, there is a separate time limit linked to the date of payment. This second provision also cannot be generalized to all insurance subrogation. The time limit for a claim directed at the insurer under the policy and the time limit for a claim the insurer directs at a third party liable for the loss arise from different legal relationships.
Notice periods, the time limit for litigation or arbitration, the claim conditions in a letter of guarantee and any extension agreements should be tracked in separate lines. It should not be assumed that sending an e-mail that merely requests compensation preserves the time limit. If a procedure such as mediation as a condition precedent to litigation applies, its scope and its effect on the time limit should also be assessed according to the type of file. It is a practical necessity for the foreign law firm and the attorney in Türkiye to reach written agreement on the same deadline.
How are litigation, security and collection planned in Türkiye?
The international jurisdiction of Turkish courts is assessed together with Article 40 (MÖHUK) and the relevant domestic law rules. If there is a valid foreign court clause or arbitration clause, its effect on the principal claim and on the successor should be examined in advance. That the insurer is the plaintiff does not turn every action brought against a third party into an insurance action arising directly from the policy. For this reason, protective jurisdiction rules in insurance contracts should not be carried over to a recourse file without examination.
Under Article 48 (MÖHUK), the bringing of an action or enforcement proceedings in Türkiye by foreign natural persons and legal entities may raise the question of security for litigation costs and the opposing party’s losses. Whether there is an exemption by reason of reciprocity or an applicable international arrangement is determined separately. Without regard to the foreign insurer’s country, it cannot be said that “no security is required” or that a single fixed rate applies to all foreigners. It should also be verified that the exemption covers legal entities and the act in question.
This procedural security is different from the counter-security that a party requesting the arrest of a vessel may provide and from the security offered by the debtor to lift the attachment. All three may arise in a single file. If precautionary attachment is contemplated, the nature of the claim as a maritime claim, the link between the debtor and the ship, the location of the ship and the special conditions in the TTK are examined. Against which assets a judgment to be obtained can be collected should also be assessed from the very first stage.
If a foreign court decision or arbitral award has been obtained, the recognition and enforcement conditions that apply for enforcement in Türkiye are addressed separately. Adding the decision or an English-language payment order to the file does not, by itself, make Turkish enforcement proceedings possible. The certification of foreign official documents, documents evidencing authority to represent and translation requirements should be planned according to the type of document. It should not be assumed that an apostille requirement automatically applies to all private policies and commercial correspondence.
Conclusion
In a foreign marine insurer’s recourse file, a legal basis conducive to success consists of establishing together the actual payment, a valid transfer of rights, a proved principal claim and correct time-limit management. The scope of the policy and the third party’s liability must be assessed separately. In particular, the special 90-day recourse provision for maritime cargo should not be read as a new time limit applicable to all insurance payments. The litigation in Türkiye, the arbitration link, and the security and collection plan should be put together at the start of the file.
Related articles: Claims under hull and machinery insurance; Claims and payment rejection under marine cargo insurance; Preservation of evidence in ship accidents; Statutes of limitations and time limits for bringing an action.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a foreign insurer bring an action in its own name in Türkiye?
It may be possible if the status of plaintiff can be established through valid subrogation or another transfer of rights and the Turkish courts have jurisdiction. The policy, the payment, the applicable law, the documents evidencing authority to represent and the principal claim are examined. Merely being a foreign insurer or having paid compensation does not automatically satisfy all the procedural and substantive conditions.
Is a subrogation document sufficient on its own?
It is usually only one part of the file. The insured’s principal right, the scope of the insurance relationship, the actual payment and the signatory’s authority must also be shown. What matters is not the name of the document but its content and the law to which it is subject. Rights the insured does not hold cannot be created merely by drawing up a document.
Does the insurer get a new year once compensation is paid?
Not in every case. Subrogation does not automatically renew the time-limit position of a principal claim that is continuing or has expired. The time limits for maritime cargo, collision and other liability relationships are determined separately. Treating the payment date as the sole starting point may cause a serious loss of rights, particularly in cargo damage claims paid late.
Does the 90-day period in TTK 1188 apply to every insurer?
No. The provision contains the conditions relating to the special right of recourse of a person held liable. It cannot be assumed to be the same legal situation as the insurer’s succession to the insured’s principal claim. The nature of the claim, the date of payment or notification, the applicable law and any extension documents must be assessed separately.
Can the entire amount the insurer paid be collected?
That it has been paid is not sufficient on its own. The third party’s liability, the net loss, the defenses and the applicable limits of liability are determined. The deductible, salvage and earlier collections are also taken into account. Coordination should be established to prevent the insured and the insurer from claiming the same portion of the loss twice.
Must a foreign insurer provide security when bringing an action?
Under Article 48 (MÖHUK), security may arise; the exemption is investigated with regard to reciprocity and applicable international arrangements. It cannot be said that there is a single fixed rate applicable to everyone. This security is assessed separately from the counter-security in an arrest of a vessel or the security for release provided by the debtor.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6102, Turkish Commercial Code (Türk Ticaret Kanunu) — Ministry of Trade (Ticaret Bakanlığı) copy, in particular Articles 1188–1189, 1297, 1352, 1369, 1472 and 1481.
- Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun) — Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı) copy, in particular Articles 2, 8, 24, 34, 40, 47–48, 50 and 60.
- A. İpek Sarıöz Büyükalp, “The Law Applicable to Cargo Insurance in Carriage by Sea and the Problem of the Binding Effect on the Insured of the Choice of Law in the Insurance Contract” (Deniz Yoluyla Taşımalarda Yük Sigortalarına Uygulanacak Hukuk ve Sigorta Sözleşmesinde Yer Alan Hukuk Seçiminin Sigortalı Açısından Bağlayıcılığı Sorunu), Anadolu University Faculty of Law Journal (Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 2024, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 133–167. An academic assessment of the relationship among the policy, the insured and the choice of law; not a binding judicial decision.
Date of source access and preparation: October 14, 2026. In addition to the dated institutional copies, the current consolidated legislation, the specific policy and the applicable foreign law should be checked. This article is intended as general legal information.