Sigortalı Eşyalar Üzerindeki Rehin Hakkı

Abstract

In many cases where a pledge is used to secure a right to claim, insurance also functions. As the creditor and the owner of the pledged property have expediences in insuring the interests of the pledged goods. Owner and creditor can secure their interests regarding the pledged property with separate insurance contracts. In such cases, over insurance indemnity will not be in question. However, in some cases where the interest of the owner on the pledged good is insured, if the owner’s interest is damaged and an insurance indemnity has arisen in favor of the owner, the pledge right will continue on the insurance indemnity. In cases where the pledge right continues over the insurance indemnity, the insurer who knows or needs to know the existence of the pledge right, will not be able to discharge its debt with the payment made to the owner without obtaining the consent of the creditor. In such instances, the owner may demand the payment of insurance indemnity by providing additional collateral and commint to restore the damaged property. However, if the pledged property still constitutes a sufficient assurance despite of the damage, the owner may demand insurance indemnity without providing additional collateral. Loss payee clauses included in the insurance policies are not legal documents ensuring the existence of the pledge. Therefore, it would not be correct to accept the continuation of the pledge right on the insurance indemnity based only on the clause in the insurance policy. Even if the pledge on the insurance indemnity continues, the right to demand and litigate belong to the owner. The creditor has also been given certain opportunities to ensure the continuity of insurance before the risk occurs. These regulations are made around two main distinctions as before and after the termination of the insurance contract.