Exactly by means of the insistence of the insuring ones in the application of the theory of the reimbursement, the doctrine and the jurisprudence if have come back toward new positionings, in view of that, the theory of the reimbursement in the judicial scope, the victim would petition action in face of the insured and this would denounce deals the insurer, in case that the insured did not effect the payment of the indemnity the victim, the insuring one also would not have the obligation of reimbursing the insured, therefore the sentence that it judges denunciation creates only a heading executive so that the insured sets in motion the insurer by means of the payment the victim, as preleciona Melisa Wedge: Where she weighs the existence of a safe from civil liability, the victim would finish completely abandoned and would have, so to speak, one ‘ ‘ enrichment without causa’ ‘ on the part of the insurer, therefore, exactly after the recognition of the responsibility of the insured, would not have the payment of the indemnity. 9 In this context the victim would be abandoned with regard to the responsibility of the insurance, therefore if exactly after evidence of the responsibility of the insured for the actual damage the victim, the same did not have ways to indemnify, the responsibility of the insurer would be limited the insured, that is, it would have obligation of the reimbursement and not to the payment of the indemnity, having payment of the indemnity on the part of the insured would not have reimbursement obligation, what it would take the insurer to an illicit enrichment without cause. By means of such possibilities, the doctrine and the jurisprudence are redirecting its agreements, taking for base principles constitutional as, of the social solidarity and of justice, where they not only attribute to the safe from civil liability the guarantee to the patrimony of the insured, but also to guarantee the harmful acts caused by the insured third (victims).. .