

Injured by a company vehicle in Turkey? Learn who may be liable, how compulsory motor insurance applies, whether the employer or company can be responsible, what compensation can be claimed and how foreign victims can pursue insurance compensation.
Traffic accidents involving company-owned vehicles can create a more complicated compensation structure than accidents between privately owned cars. A delivery van, corporate car, commercial vehicle, employee-driven company automobile or other business vehicle may involve several potentially responsible parties at the same time. Depending on the circumstances, the injured person may need to examine the liability of the driver, the vehicle operator, the company connected with the vehicle and one or more insurers.
For foreign tourists, residents and international employees injured in Turkey, identifying the correct defendant or insurer is particularly important. The name printed on the vehicle does not necessarily determine legal liability, and the fact that an employee was driving during working hours does not automatically mean that every loss will be paid directly by the employer.
The correct approach is to investigate who owned and operated the vehicle, who was driving it, whether the driver was acting within the employment or business relationship, which insurance policies were effective on the accident date, how fault is allocated and what losses were actually caused by the accident.
For accidents occurring in 2026, compulsory motor liability insurance remains a central source of compensation. The official 2026 limits for vehicles used to transport people are TRY 400,000 per vehicle and TRY 800,000 per accident for property damage, TRY 3.6 million per person and TRY 18 million per accident for healthcare expenses, and TRY 3.6 million per person and TRY 18 million per accident for disability and death. Different accident-wide limits apply to certain vehicle categories.
A company vehicle accident should not be treated simply as a claim against the employee who happened to be driving.
Depending on the facts, the compensation structure may involve the driver, the person or entity legally regarded as the vehicle operator, the company employing or engaging the driver, the compulsory motor insurer and potentially an additional liability insurer.
The relationships between these parties matter because the victim’s total damages and the amount available from one particular insurer are not necessarily the same.
A serious injury case should therefore begin by mapping the complete liability and insurance structure.
Not automatically in every conceivable situation, but company ownership and operation can be highly significant.
The legal analysis should determine who qualifies as the vehicle operator and whether additional responsibility arises from the employment or organizational relationship between the company and driver.
For example, a company may own a delivery vehicle and instruct an employee to make deliveries during working hours. If the employee negligently causes an accident while performing those duties, the company’s potential responsibility should be examined together with the driver’s responsibility and compulsory motor insurance.
The analysis can become different where a vehicle was being used without authorization or outside the employee’s assigned duties.
This is one of the strongest indicators that the accident may be connected with the company’s business activities.
Suppose an employee is driving to a customer meeting, transporting goods, making a delivery or travelling between company facilities when the accident occurs.
The victim should not focus solely on the individual driver.
The driver’s employment relationship, instructions, purpose of the journey and connection between the trip and the company’s operations should all be investigated.
Evidence may include employment records, delivery documentation, company instructions, GPS records and other business records.
This can complicate the liability analysis.
An employee may have permission to take a company vehicle home and use it privately. Another employee may use a vehicle outside authorized purposes without the company’s knowledge.
The effect of personal use depends on the particular facts and applicable legal rules.
It is therefore dangerous to assume either that the company is always responsible or that personal use automatically eliminates every form of company-related liability.
The vehicle’s ownership, operator status, employment relationship, authorization and insurance coverage should be examined separately.
Compulsory motor insurance is generally one of the first insurance sources that should be identified after a company vehicle causes injury or property damage to a third party.
The applicable policy must be identified according to the vehicle and accident date.
The insurer’s responsibility is subject to the applicable insurance framework, policy coverage, fault and statutory limits.
A company vehicle does not lose compulsory motor insurance protection merely because it is used commercially, although the vehicle category and circumstances can affect the applicable coverage.
The official limits applicable between January 1 and December 31, 2026 vary according to vehicle category.
For vehicles used to transport people, the limits are TRY 400,000 per vehicle and TRY 800,000 per accident for property damage, TRY 3.6 million per person and TRY 18 million per accident for healthcare expenses, and TRY 3.6 million per person and TRY 18 million per accident for disability and death.
For vehicles used to transport goods, trailers and construction machinery, the per-person healthcare and disability/death limits are also TRY 3.6 million, while the corresponding accident-wide limits are TRY 36 million.
These figures are maximum insurance limits, not predetermined compensation amounts.
No.
The TRY 3.6 million figure is a per-person coverage ceiling for healthcare expenses and separately for disability/death within the relevant 2026 vehicle categories.
The victim’s actual legally recoverable damages must still be established.
A moderate injury may result in compensation substantially below the applicable insurance limit.
Conversely, catastrophic injuries involving permanent disability and substantial future earning losses may create damages exceeding compulsory insurance coverage.
Depending on the injury, liability and applicable insurance framework, a company vehicle accident can potentially generate claims relating to permanent disability, temporary working incapacity, loss of earning capacity, future economic loss, vehicle damage and other legally compensable consequences.
Serious cases may also involve future medical needs, rehabilitation, prosthetic equipment or continuing care.
However, not every category of damage is necessarily payable by the same insurer.
The legal claim should therefore distinguish between total damages suffered by the victim and damages falling within the scope of a particular insurance policy.
Permanent disability is frequently the most important component of a serious company vehicle accident claim.
A spinal injury, brain injury, amputation, severe orthopedic injury or neurological impairment can affect the victim for the remainder of their life.
The compensation assessment may require examination of the victim’s age, income, medical impairment, working capacity, fault and applicable actuarial methodology.
Medical evidence should be sufficiently developed before permanent disability is finally calculated.
An accident may prevent the injured person from working temporarily.
Employment records, salary statements, banking documents and other financial evidence can help demonstrate actual lost income.
Foreign victims who earn income abroad should preserve equivalent documentation from their home country.
The fact that the salary is paid outside Turkey or in a foreign currency does not mean that evidence of economic loss should be ignored.
A severe accident may permanently reduce the victim’s ability to earn income.
This is particularly important for high-income professionals, skilled workers, athletes, executives and self-employed individuals.
A surgeon who suffers permanent hand impairment, for example, may experience dramatically different economic consequences from another person with the same medical impairment.
The claim should therefore connect medical disability with the victim’s actual occupation and economic circumstances.
Where the company vehicle damages another car, property damage should also be evaluated.
Repair costs may be relevant, but additional claims can arise depending on the circumstances.
One particularly important issue is vehicle diminished value.
Even after technically adequate repairs, a vehicle with a documented accident history may have a lower market value.
The availability and calculation of a diminished-value claim should therefore be investigated separately.
Pedestrians injured by company vehicles may pursue compensation where legal responsibility is established.
Delivery vehicles, service vehicles and other commercial vehicles frequently operate in busy urban areas, loading zones and areas with significant pedestrian movement.
Evidence concerning vehicle speed, pedestrian crossings, traffic signals, visibility and driver behavior can become critical.
CCTV evidence should be secured quickly because recordings may be overwritten.
A passenger injured in a company vehicle may also have compensation rights.
The analysis should identify how the accident occurred and whether another vehicle was involved.
Where two or more vehicles contributed to the collision, the relevant drivers, operators and insurers should all be investigated.
A passenger should not automatically assume that the only possible claim is against the company whose vehicle they occupied.
If an employee driving a company vehicle negligently collides with another vehicle, the injured driver may potentially pursue compensation through the applicable compulsory insurance and liability framework.
The injured driver’s own fault must also be examined.
Where responsibility is shared, the recoverable amount can be affected accordingly.
The official accident report is important but should be evaluated together with the underlying evidence where fault is disputed.
Commercial delivery vehicles and trucks can cause severe injuries because of their size and weight.
The legal analysis may also involve more extensive business records.
Driver working arrangements, route information, vehicle maintenance records, company instructions and cargo-related circumstances may become relevant depending on how the accident occurred.
For goods-transport vehicles, the official 2026 compulsory insurance accident-wide healthcare and disability/death limits are TRY 36 million, while the per-person limits are TRY 3.6 million.
Potentially.
A traffic accident may involve more than negligent driving.
For example, questions may arise concerning maintenance, vehicle condition, company practices or instructions given to the employee.
Where there is evidence of separate organizational negligence, it should be investigated independently.
The victim should therefore avoid assuming that the driver’s immediate driving error represents the entire liability case.
Vehicle condition can become particularly important where mechanical failure contributed to the accident.
Brake problems, tire conditions, steering defects or other mechanical issues may require technical examination.
Maintenance records and inspection documentation should be preserved where relevant.
If a company knew or should have known about a dangerous condition but continued using the vehicle, this may materially affect the broader liability analysis.
Potentially, depending on the legal basis and facts.
The fact that insurance exists does not necessarily eliminate the potential liability of the driver, vehicle operator or other responsible persons.
This becomes particularly important when the victim’s legally recoverable damages exceed the amount available under compulsory motor insurance.
A serious claim should identify every potentially responsible party before limitation periods or evidentiary opportunities are lost.
Compulsory motor insurance limits the insurer’s contractual or statutory payment exposure; it does not automatically determine the victim’s entire legal loss.
Suppose a young high-income professional suffers permanent catastrophic disability and the legally recoverable damages exceed available compulsory motor insurance coverage.
Potential claims against the vehicle operator, driver and other responsible parties may then become particularly important.
Any additional insurance should also be identified.
Companies operating vehicle fleets may carry insurance protection beyond compulsory motor insurance.
The existence and scope of additional motor liability coverage should therefore be investigated in serious cases.
Such insurance can become particularly important where the victim’s damages exceed compulsory limits.
The policy wording, coverage limits, exclusions and accident circumstances must be reviewed before assuming that additional coverage is available.
Employer liability insurance and motor liability insurance serve different purposes.
An employer liability policy may become relevant in certain workplace-related scenarios, while an ordinary third party injured by a company vehicle will generally require analysis of the motor liability structure.
SEDDK separately identifies compulsory motor liability insurance, voluntary motor liability insurance and employer liability insurance among recognized liability insurance categories. (SEDDK)
The existence of several policies does not mean that they all cover the same loss.
A particularly complicated situation arises where the injured person is also an employee of the company.
For example, several employees may be travelling in a company vehicle for work when the driver loses control and causes a serious accident.
The case may then involve both traffic accident compensation and workplace accident considerations.
Social security rights, employer responsibility, compulsory motor insurance and any employer liability insurance may need to be analyzed together.
The victim should avoid treating these mechanisms as mutually exclusive without a case-specific assessment.
Foreign employees can face additional difficulties because employment, insurance and immigration documentation may intersect with the accident claim.
The claimant should preserve employment contracts, payroll records, work authorization documentation where relevant, bank records and evidence showing that the journey was connected with employment.
Where the injured employee later returns abroad, continuing medical records and evidence of lost foreign income should also be preserved.
A foreign tourist injured by a delivery van, corporate vehicle, commercial shuttle or other company vehicle can potentially pursue compensation in Turkey even after returning home.
The victim should obtain the accident report, vehicle details, insurer information and medical records before leaving whenever possible.
Continuing treatment abroad should also be documented carefully.
A foreign victim should not assume that returning home automatically ends the ability to pursue the Turkish insurance claim.
A foreign victim may earn substantially more than a locally assumed minimum income.
This can become extremely important in permanent disability and future earning-capacity claims.
Employment agreements, payslips, tax returns and banking records should therefore be preserved.
An insurer may challenge foreign earnings where they are not properly documented.
Reliable historical evidence is much stronger than unsupported statements about occupation or salary.
This can create an evidentiary dispute.
The company may argue that the driver was an independent contractor, subcontractor or otherwise outside the employment relationship.
The legal characterization should not necessarily depend solely on the label used by the company.
Employment documentation, payment records, instructions, operational control and the actual relationship between the parties may become relevant.
The vehicle’s operator status should also be investigated independently.
Company fleets frequently include leased rather than directly owned vehicles.
This does not mean that the injured person should automatically pursue only the registered owner.
Leasing arrangements can affect the legal analysis of ownership, operation, insurance and responsibility.
The underlying vehicle records and contractual relationships should therefore be examined where necessary.
If a commercial vehicle leaves the scene, rapid evidence preservation becomes essential.
The company’s logo, partial registration number, CCTV footage, dashcam recordings, delivery records and witness statements may help identify the vehicle.
Once identified, the insurance status and company relationship can be investigated.
Victims should act quickly because commercial CCTV and traffic recordings may not be retained indefinitely.
Where a company vehicle causes death, surviving family members may potentially have substantial claims.
Loss of support compensation may be available to persons who have lost the deceased’s financial support.
Funeral expenses and other death-related damages should also be evaluated.
The liability of the driver, operator, company and relevant insurer should be analyzed together rather than treating the case simply as an insurance claim.
Companies sometimes seek to resolve accidents privately.
A direct settlement should be approached carefully, particularly where serious bodily injury is involved.
The victim may not yet know whether the injury will cause permanent disability, future surgery, long-term rehabilitation or loss of earning capacity.
Any settlement or release should therefore be reviewed for its scope.
A payment that appears attractive immediately after an accident can be inadequate if the long-term medical and economic consequences have not yet been established.
The claimant should preserve the accident report, vehicle registration information, insurance details, photographs, CCTV or dashcam evidence, witness information and complete medical records. Evidence concerning employment and income should also be retained where loss of earnings is claimed.
Where company liability is disputed, documents establishing the driver’s relationship with the business and the purpose of the journey can become particularly important.
For foreign claimants, medical and financial documents generated after returning home should also be preserved.
Where a qualifying insurance claim is rejected, delayed or underpaid, Insurance Arbitration may provide a dispute-resolution route depending on the insurer and applicable procedural requirements.
The claim should be properly documented before proceedings begin.
Disputes may concern fault, permanent disability, income, causation, coverage or the insurer’s calculation methodology.
A claimant should therefore understand why the insurer rejected or reduced the claim before selecting the appropriate legal remedy.
Turkey’s motor insurance system has undergone additional procedural and regulatory developments during 2026. SEDDK published amendments to the compulsory motor insurance General Conditions in June 2026 and issued measures concerning claimant contact information and standardized motor insurance expert reports. (SEDDK)
SEDDK’s 2026 regulatory materials also include the establishment of the Alo 193 Insurance Claim Notification and Complaint Line and a common claim notification center for motor vehicle insurance claims. (SEDDK)
Claims arising in 2026 should therefore be prepared according to the rules and procedures applicable on the relevant accident and application dates.
The central issue is therefore not merely which employee was driving the vehicle. A properly investigated company vehicle accident should determine who operated the vehicle, why it was being driven, which insurance policies apply, whether the company has an independent basis of liability and whether the victim’s total damages exceed available insurance coverage.
Potentially, yes. Compulsory motor insurance may provide compensation for covered third-party losses, subject to liability, policy coverage and applicable limits.
Potentially. The company’s role as vehicle operator, employer or otherwise responsible entity should be examined according to the circumstances.
Potentially, yes. The driver’s responsibility should be assessed separately from insurance coverage and potential company liability.
The connection between the journey and employment can be highly relevant to the company’s potential responsibility.
Private or unauthorized use can complicate the analysis, but it does not justify assuming that every form of insurance or company-related liability automatically disappears.
For vehicles used to transport people, the official 2026 per-person limit is TRY 3.6 million for healthcare expenses and TRY 3.6 million for disability and death, subject to separate accident-wide limits.
Total legally recoverable damages can potentially exceed compulsory insurance coverage. Claims against other legally responsible parties and additional insurance should then be investigated.
Potentially, yes. Foreign nationality does not itself eliminate a traffic accident compensation claim arising in Turkey.
Potentially, depending on the applicable compensation rules and evidence. Employment contracts, payslips, tax records and banking documentation can be particularly important.
Leasing can affect the ownership and operator analysis. The vehicle records, insurance and contractual arrangements should be examined rather than assuming that the registered owner is the only relevant party.
Accidents caused by company vehicles require a broader investigation than simply identifying the driver and sending a claim to an insurance company. The vehicle’s ownership and operator status, the driver’s employment relationship, the purpose of the journey, compulsory motor insurance, additional liability policies and the company’s potential responsibility should all be examined.
This becomes especially important after catastrophic injuries. Permanent disability, future loss of earning capacity and other long-term damages may exceed the amount available under compulsory motor insurance. In those circumstances, limiting the claim to the first insurer identified can leave a substantial part of the victim’s potential recovery unexplored.
Foreign victims should also preserve evidence of income and continuing medical treatment outside Turkey. International employment contracts, salary statements, tax documents and medical reports may become essential where the accident causes long-term economic loss.
Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign individuals and international clients with company vehicle accident claims, commercial vehicle accidents, permanent disability compensation, loss of earning capacity, foreign income claims, fatal company vehicle accidents, compulsory motor insurance disputes, additional liability insurance, Insurance Arbitration and traffic accident litigation in Turkey.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No: 221, Yıldırım Tower, Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey