1. Systemic Change: Centralized and Digital Loss Adjuster Appointment System (EKSİST)
With the Regulation, the appointment of loss adjusters has been centralized through the Loss Adjuster Appointment and Tracking System (EKSİST). This arrangement aims to ensure that the appointment process is:
- Conducted electronically,
- Properly recorded,
- Made auditable.
In this respect, EKSİST should be considered not merely as a technical infrastructure, but as a mechanism ensuring transparency and accountability in the process.
2. Expansion of the Authority to Appoint Loss Adjusters
Another notable change introduced by the Regulation is the expansion of the authority to appoint loss adjusters. Under the new framework, loss adjusters may be appointed by the insurer, the insured, the policyholder, and beneficiaries of the insurance contract.
This regulation aims to address the frequently criticized “unilateral appointment” practice of the previous system and to restore balance between the parties.
3. Sequential and Objective Appointment Principle
Under the Regulation, particularly for certain insurance branches and types of damage, the appointment of loss adjusters is carried out through a sequential and objective allocation system.
This system aims to:
- Prevent the steering of assignments toward specific adjusters,
- Strengthen professional independence,
- Ensure equality in practice.
This regulation is expected to significantly reduce debates regarding the impartiality of loss adjusters. In compulsory motor liability insurance, the appointment of a loss adjuster has been made mandatory where the damage exceeds one-tenth of the minimum material coverage amount. In casco insurance, appointment via EKSİST has become mandatory in cases requiring a decision of severe or total loss.
4. Time Regime and Obligations of Insurance Companies
The Regulation imposes strict timelines for the management of the claims process. In this regard, insurance companies are required to:
- Record the claim file in the system without delay following notification of loss,
- Initiate the appointment process in a timely manner.
This approach constitutes a well-founded regulation aimed at preventing delays frequently encountered in practice.
5. Scope of Loss Adjuster Reports, Objection, and Review Process
The scope of duties of loss adjusters appointed for damage assessment is not limited to determining the extent and amount of material damage, but also includes the assessment of diminution in value as a complementary element of the loss, based on technical criteria.
In this context, the adjuster must determine the loss in value not merely through mathematical or standard formulas, but by considering multiple parameters such as the vehicle’s age, mileage, nature and severity of the damage, scope of repair, market value, and supply-demand conditions in the second-hand market, in line with the principle of actual loss.
This approach is a natural extension of the principle of full compensation of actual damage and plays a decisive role in ensuring equitable outcomes in both insurance law and general compensation law.
Under the new regulation, parties are granted the right to object to loss adjuster reports—including those concerning damage and loss of value—within three business days. In case of objection, a new loss adjuster shall be appointed through the system.
This mechanism enables:
- Correction of technical errors,
- A second evaluation,
- Resolution of disputes without resorting to litigation.
While the fee for the initial loss adjuster report is borne by the insurance company, it remains unclear which party will bear the costs of the adjuster appointed following an objection.
Conclusion
This regulation represents not merely an administrative amendment, but a structural transformation directly affecting the dynamics of insurance dispute resolution. Considering the evidentiary value of loss adjuster reports, the reliability of the appointment process directly influences judicial assessments.
In conclusion, the Regulation establishes a more balanced, transparent, and institutional framework for the loss adjuster system, and its practical implications are expected to become clearer particularly through judicial decisions.