The conviction of the insuring one will only appear if proven that the insured acted with guilt or deceit in the accident, from there the necessity of integration of the contractor, under penalty, also, of restraining of access. 19 In the Superior Court of Justice, exists those that form one third positioning, for understanding to be the safe from one facultative civil liability, being I stimulate for third, being able the victim to exclusively interpose direct action and in face of the insurer, in view of if to deal with institute that establishes exception the beginning of the relativity of the contractual effect, what it allows that the contract reaches who of it was not part originarily: The deriving relations of an insurance contract are not locked in between the contracting parties, being able to reach third beneficiary, as it occurs with the casualty or life insurances, classic examples pointed by the doctrine. In the stipulations for third, this can be indetermined future person and, being enough that it is determinable, as in the case of the insurance, where if it identifies the beneficiary at the moment of the accident. The third beneficiary, despite he has not been party to contract, has legitimacy to file a suit direct action against the insuring one, to charge the foreseen contractual indemnity in its favor. 20 Aiming at to support the victims, as well as to prevent the enrichment illicit of insuring a doctrine and the jurisprudence, after diverse quarrels on the application of the theory of the reimbursement, when analyzing the consequncias that this could cause come adopting new possibilities, as the possibility to file a suit direct action in face of the insurer, as mentioned in the citation above. The Minister Aldir Passarinho Jnior, understands that he is not cabvel third (victim) to directly petition action for indemnification in face of the insurer, in view of this not to be part of the harmful event: To the part author, supposed victim of the traffic accident, it the bringing suit of demand of indemnity against insuring of the male defendant is not authorized pretense causer of the damage, since it is not part of the harmful event.