Diverse they are the agreements in this direction. The Minister Athos Gusmo Sheep, accuses to the necessity with legislative alteration aiming at to the insertion of a new possibility of third party notice: Either inserted a new hypothesis of third party notice, including themselves in article 77, of the Code of Civil action, an interpolated proposition IV, foreseeing ' ' third party notice of insuring in the action for civil liability the proposal against segurado' '. 16 In such a way, the victim would have initially to petition action in face of the insured who was who caused the damage, fitting to this to call the insurer to the process, being thus, in the agreement of the alluded minister would not fit direct action in face of the insuring one, having the same one if to become part in the process by means of manifestation of will of the insured when calling the insurer to the process. According to Minister, would be an indirect form to recognize the existence of the pretension of the victim against the insurer in the plan of the material right. 17 In the State Courts exists a minority chain who also defend the interposition of action in face of the insured and not directly in face of the insurer based in article 787 of the NCC: The direct payment for the insurer is not possible to the victim, not even in headquarters of execution of sentence, under the bedding of that ' ' the payment of the indemnity directly to the third wronged one in the obligator insurances is only possible.
… Not being this hypothesis, the insurer only guarantees the payment of the indemnity due for the insured (art.787, NCC) ' '. 18 In the Superior Court of Justice, some ministers adopts boarded agreement the same previously: Diversely of the DPVAT, the voluntary insurance is contracted for the insured, not of third, luck that without its concomitant presence in the passive polar region of it deals directly does not affirm possible the demand intended for the victim against the insuring one.