Glossary
Insured vs insured exclusion
A D&O exclusion removing coverage for claims brought by one insured against another, such as a company suing its own directors.
Also called: IvI exclusion, insured versus insured exclusion, IVI
The insured vs insured exclusion removes coverage for a claim brought by, or on behalf of, one insured against another. In a directors and officers policy that means the company suing a director, a director suing the company, or one officer suing another. Insurers write it for two reasons: to guard against collusive suits designed to turn the policy into a source of funding for the company, and to avoid covering what is, in effect, an internal dispute.
Taken literally, the exclusion can swallow coverage that buyers expect. A trustee in bankruptcy suing the former directors brings the claim on behalf of the company. A shareholder derivative suit is brought in the company's name. Policies handle this with carve-backs, which return coverage for specific situations. Typical carve-backs are derivative claims brought without the assistance of an insured, claims by a bankruptcy trustee, receiver or creditors' committee, whistleblower and employment-related claims, and claims by former directors and officers who left more than a set time before. How courts read the exclusion varies, and wording differences matter.
Check the carve-backs at purchase and renewal, particularly for companies facing financial stress, investors with board seats, or family-owned businesses where disputes between owners are the likeliest claim. Ask the broker for the exact carve-back list in writing. The guide on the The insured vs insured exclusion in D&O policies goes through typical wording, and Directors and officers (D&O) insurance explains the policy.
Last reviewed October 10, 2026