Glossary / Policy structure / Insured vs Insured Exclusion (D&O)

Insured vs Insured Exclusion (D&O)

Also known as: IvI Exclusion · Insured vs Insured · IvI

Policy structure DICEE: Exclusions

A D&O exclusion that bars coverage when one insured (e.g., the company) sues another insured (e.g., a director or officer).

The insured vs insured (IvI) exclusion prevents the D&O policy from paying claims brought by one insured party against another—for example, the company suing a former officer, or one director suing another. The exclusion exists to prevent collusive lawsuits designed to trigger insurance payouts. However, it can create real coverage gaps: if the company sues a departing founder or if a new board sues former directors after a change of control, the IvI exclusion may block coverage. Carve-backs (exceptions) are critical—look for carve-backs for derivative shareholder suits, employment claims, and whistleblower actions.

Where you'll see it

PolicyQuote

Why it matters for your business

  • One of the most impactful exclusions in a D&O policy—can block coverage for common startup disputes like founder fallouts or board vs. management conflicts.
  • Carve-backs matter enormously: a good policy carves back coverage for derivative suits, employment claims, and whistleblower/retaliation claims.
  • After an acquisition or change of control, the new owners may try to sue former directors—IvI can block that claim if not properly carved back.
  • Investors and experienced board members will scrutinize IvI language before joining your board.

People also ask

What is the insured vs insured exclusion in D&O?

The insured vs insured (IvI) exclusion prevents your D&O policy from covering claims when one insured party sues another—for example, when a founder sues a co-founder or the company sues a director. This exclusion exists to prevent collusive lawsuits. However, carve-backs for derivative shareholder suits and employment claims are essential to preserve meaningful coverage.

Why do D&O policies have an insured vs insured exclusion?

The insured vs insured exclusion prevents policyholders from manufacturing claims by suing themselves. Insurers added this exclusion to stop companies and their insiders from colluding to trigger coverage. However, legitimate third-party claims like derivative shareholder suits need carve-backs, or the policy becomes nearly useless. Always negotiate carve-backs for derivative actions, employment claims, and whistleblower suits.

What are carve-backs to the insured vs insured exclusion?

Carve-backs are exceptions to the insured vs insured exclusion that restore coverage for legitimate claims. Essential carve-backs include derivative shareholder suits (where shareholders sue on behalf of the company), employment claims, and whistleblower actions. Without these carve-backs, most D&O claims wouldn't be covered. Startups should negotiate these carefully, especially for derivative and employment matters.

Ready to take the next step?

Definitions are educational and may be modified by your specific policy language, endorsements, and state rules. For regulatory guidance, refer to the California Department of Insurance or the NAIC.

Reviewed by Andrei Craciunescu, CA Licensed Insurance Broker #4467994

Last updated: July 2026.