Was Your Vehicle Damaged at the Service Center the Insurance Expert Referred You To? Who Is Liable

The insurance expert who steps in to assess damage after an accident is one of the most critical actors in the process. Beyond the appraisal process itself, however, complaints of the form "the expert recommended this service center, and my vehicle/belongings were damaged there" also arise from time to time. So can the expert or the expert company be held legally liable in such a case? In this article, we examine the scope of duty of insurance experts and how liability is determined for damage arising from the fault of third parties.

Why This Matters

Policyholders place great trust in the expert and generally accept the referrals made by the expert without question. However, the legal consequences of this relationship of trust are limited. Not knowing who will be liable for damage arising from a recommendation outside the expert's job description can lead policyholders to sue the wrong party and to unnecessary loss of time and expense.

Summary of the Situation (A Typical Scenario)

A policyholder is referred, for the repair of their damaged vehicle, to a service center recommended by the insurance expert. However, during the process, the vehicle is lost or seriously damaged as a result of an act constituting breach of trust by a person employed at that service center. The policyholder files a lawsuit against both the service center and the expert company (and its authorized representative) that referred them to that service center, seeking compensation for their damage.

The Legal Issue

The fundamental question here is: does an expert's mere recommendation of a service center render the expert or the expert company liable for damage occurring at that service center that arises entirely from the fault/offense of a third party?

The Expert's Statutory Job Description

Insurance Law No. 5684 and the relevant secondary legislation clearly limit the scope of the insurance expert's duty: the expert's core function is to impartially determine the amount, causes and nature of the damage arising from the occurrence of the risk.

• Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber (2014, Case No. 2012/17193, Decision No. 2014/2863): Stated that the expert is "a person who works independently and impartially from the insurance companies and the policyholder, and who determines the amount and causes of the damage."
• Bakırköy 7th Civil Court of First Instance for Commercial Matters (2018, Case No. 2017/917, Decision No. 2018/1215): Held that the expert company cannot be held liable for indirect damage arising from repair standards or the repair process, and that liability in this regard (if any) may belong to the insurance company.

What Does the Court of Cassation Say?

The Limits of Service Fault

• Konya Regional Court of Appeal, 6th Civil Chamber (2023, Case No. 2020/2848, Decision No. 2023/339): Emphasized that in order for those providing appraisal services to be held liable, it must be concretely established that they provided a "faulty service."
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 14th Civil Chamber (2024, Case No. 2021/1568, Decision No. 2024/1677): Stated that the expert's liability can be accepted only in the case of negligence directly related to the professional activity itself — such as failing to report a defect that could be detected through simple checks — and that operational processes such as service referral are not evaluated within this scope.

Severance of Causation: A Third Party's Act Constituting a Criminal Offense

Under Article 49 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), a claim in tort requires fault, damage and adequate causation together. A crime such as "breach of trust" committed by a service center employee constitutes a third-party intervention that severs the causal link between the expert's act and the damage.

• Antalya 4th Civil Court of First Instance for Commercial Matters (2020, Case No. 2019/508, Decision No. 2020/410): Held that where the causal link is severed, even a person who is strictly liable without fault cannot be held liable, and that third-party intervention severs this link.
• Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 21st Civil Chamber (2025, Case No. 2024/99, Decision No. 2025/1742): Held that where the damage arises from a cause outside the service relationship, causation cannot be established and liability does not arise.
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 9th Civil Chamber (2021, Case No. 2019/317, Decision No. 2021/222): Stated that the insurance company (and the expert acting on its behalf) cannot be held liable for damage arising from the faulty performance of the repairer.

Individual Liability of the Expert Company's Representative

• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 8th Civil Chamber (2021, Case No. 2020/1378, Decision No. 2021/1327): Stated that even where the expert prepares a faulty report, liability should belong to the principal employer (the insurance company), and the expert's individual liability cannot be pursued.
• Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber (2015, Case No. 2015/5154, Decision No. 2015/12396): Emphasized that experts are not employees of the insurance company but are independent professionals, and that there is no hierarchical "employer-employee" relationship between them.

Points to Watch

• Recommending a service center is not the expert's core duty. The expert's statutory duty is damage assessment; the choice of repair location does not fall within this scope.
• Check the causal link. If the damage arises from an independent act constituting a crime committed by a third party (for example, a service center employee), this may eliminate the expert's liability.
• Correctly identify who is at fault. The party directly liable for the damage is generally the person or entity that actually caused it (for example, the service business), not the expert.
• Personal fault is assessed separately. Unless the personal fault of the expert company's representative is proven, there is no joint and several liability (each party being individually liable for the entire debt) arising merely from a recommendation.
• Identify the correct defendant. Filing suit against the party that is the true source of the damage (for example, the relevant service business or the person responsible there) is a more accurate strategy in terms of both time and cost.

Conclusion: What Should You Do?

If you suffered damage at a location to which you were referred following an insurance appraisal process, you should first clarify the true source of the damage:

• Document which act (for example, an employee's act constituting a crime) caused the damage.
• Evaluate with a law firm whether the expert can be held liable for a matter outside their job description (for example, choice of service center).
• Initiate legal proceedings against the party directly liable for the damage (together with a criminal complaint if necessary).
• Since technical concepts such as causation and service fault will directly determine the outcome of your case, be sure to obtain a lawyer's opinion before filing suit.