{
  "id": "clause-insured-vs-insured",
  "type": "clause",
  "languages": {
    "en": {
      "id": "clause-insured-vs-insured",
      "lang": "en",
      "type": "clause",
      "title": "Insured vs Insured Exclusion",
      "shortDefinition": "The insured versus insured exclusion bars cover under a D&O policy for claims brought by an insured person or the insured company itself against another insured person.",
      "synonyms": [
        "IvI Exclusion",
        "Intra-Insured Exclusion"
      ],
      "linesOfBusiness": [
        "D&O insurance"
      ],
      "jurisdictions": [
        "Global"
      ],
      "tags": [
        "D&O",
        "Exclusions",
        "London Market"
      ],
      "relations": {
        "relatedTerms": [],
        "partOf": [],
        "appliesTo": [
          "cov-do"
        ],
        "regulatedBy": [],
        "relevantFor": [],
        "insurableVia": [],
        "mitigatedBy": [],
        "comprises": [],
        "alternativeTo": [],
        "complementedBy": []
      },
      "attribute": null,
      "profile": null,
      "coverageProfile": null,
      "clause": {
        "kind": "exclusion",
        "origin": "london-market",
        "favours": "insurer",
        "negotiability": "negotiable",
        "standardWordings": []
      },
      "legalBasis": [],
      "standards": [],
      "reviewStatus": "expert-reviewed",
      "reviewedBy": "Guido Hesse, Hesse Group Holding AG",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-09-04",
      "version": "0.1.0",
      "updated": "2026-09-03",
      "generated": {
        "by": "cursor-agent/claude-sonnet-5",
        "at": "2026-09-03T00:00:00.000Z"
      },
      "verified": [
        {
          "by": "human:ghesse",
          "at": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z",
          "method": null
        }
      ],
      "staleAfter": null,
      "url": "https://hgh.ch/lexikon/en/knowledge/clause/insured-vs-insured-exclusion/",
      "alternateUrl": "https://hgh.ch/lexikon/de/wissen/klausel/insured-vs-insured-ausschluss/",
      "body": "## Purpose\n\nWithout this exclusion, a D&O policy could in theory be misused for collusive litigation: the company and a director or officer could coordinate a manufactured claim to trigger insurance proceeds without any genuine third party having been harmed. The insured versus insured exclusion prevents this by generally removing claims by one insured against another insured from cover, and equally addresses internal disputes and succession conflicts.\n\n## Effect and limits\n\nThe exclusion applies once both claimant and respondent fall within the policy's definition of \"insured\" — typically the company itself together with current and former directors and officers. Without carve-backs, however, it would also catch legitimate claims, such as derivative suits brought on the company's behalf, claims by an insolvency trustee, employment-related claims, or whistleblower actions. Market-standard policies therefore include carve-backs for exactly these categories; for listed companies the exclusion is also frequently narrowed to a tighter \"entity versus insured\" exclusion.\n\n## Negotiation and practice\n\nAt placement it should be checked which carve-backs (derivative suits, insolvency trustees, whistleblowers, former directors after expiry of a separation period) the specific wording contains, since these determine the practical scope of the exclusion. Particular attention is warranted for private-equity-backed companies where a sponsor representative sits on the board and the portfolio company later brings a claim against that board."
    },
    "de": {
      "id": "clause-insured-vs-insured",
      "lang": "de",
      "type": "clause",
      "title": "Insured vs Insured Exclusion",
      "shortDefinition": "Der Insured-vs-Insured-Ausschluss schliesst in D&O-Policen Ansprüche aus, die von einer versicherten Person oder dem versicherten Unternehmen selbst gegen eine andere versicherte Person erhoben werden.",
      "synonyms": [
        "IvI Exclusion",
        "Intra-Insured Exclusion"
      ],
      "linesOfBusiness": [
        "D&O-Versicherung"
      ],
      "jurisdictions": [
        "Global"
      ],
      "tags": [
        "D&O",
        "Ausschlüsse",
        "London Market"
      ],
      "relations": {
        "relatedTerms": [],
        "partOf": [],
        "appliesTo": [
          "cov-do"
        ],
        "regulatedBy": [],
        "relevantFor": [],
        "insurableVia": [],
        "mitigatedBy": [],
        "comprises": [],
        "alternativeTo": [],
        "complementedBy": []
      },
      "attribute": null,
      "profile": null,
      "coverageProfile": null,
      "clause": {
        "kind": "exclusion",
        "origin": "london-market",
        "favours": "insurer",
        "negotiability": "negotiable",
        "standardWordings": []
      },
      "legalBasis": [],
      "standards": [],
      "reviewStatus": "expert-reviewed",
      "reviewedBy": "Guido Hesse, Hesse Group Holding AG",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-09-04",
      "version": "0.1.0",
      "updated": "2026-09-03",
      "generated": {
        "by": "cursor-agent/claude-sonnet-5",
        "at": "2026-09-03T00:00:00.000Z"
      },
      "verified": [
        {
          "by": "human:ghesse",
          "at": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z",
          "method": null
        }
      ],
      "staleAfter": null,
      "url": "https://hgh.ch/lexikon/de/wissen/klausel/insured-vs-insured-ausschluss/",
      "alternateUrl": "https://hgh.ch/lexikon/en/knowledge/clause/insured-vs-insured-exclusion/",
      "body": "## Zweck\n\nOhne diesen Ausschluss könnte eine D&O-Police theoretisch für kollusive Klagen missbraucht werden: Das Unternehmen und ein Organmitglied könnten sich intern absprechen, eine Klage zu konstruieren, um Versicherungsleistung auszulösen, ohne dass ein echter Dritter geschädigt ist. Der Insured-vs-Insured-Ausschluss verhindert dies, indem er Ansprüche eines Versicherten gegen einen anderen Versicherten grundsätzlich von der Deckung ausnimmt – ebenso interne Streitigkeiten und Nachfolgekonflikte.\n\n## Wirkung und Grenzen\n\nDer Ausschluss greift, sobald sowohl Anspruchsteller als auch Anspruchsgegner unter die Definition «Versicherte» fallen – regelmässig das Unternehmen selbst sowie aktuelle und frühere Organmitglieder. Ohne Rückausnahmen («carve-backs») würde er jedoch auch legitime Klagen erfassen, etwa Aktionärsklagen im Namen der Gesellschaft (derivative suits), Klagen eines Insolvenzverwalters, arbeitsrechtliche Ansprüche oder Whistleblower-Klagen. Marktübliche Policen enthalten deshalb Rückausnahmen für genau diese Fallgruppen; bei börsenkotierten Gesellschaften wird der Ausschluss zudem häufig auf einen engeren «Entity-vs-Insured»-Ausschluss reduziert.\n\n## Verhandlung und Praxis\n\nBeim Underwriting ist zu prüfen, welche Rückausnahmen (Derivativklagen, Insolvenzverwalter, Whistleblower, ausgeschiedene Organe nach Ablauf einer Karenzfrist) im konkreten Wording enthalten sind, da diese über die praktische Reichweite des Ausschlusses entscheiden. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit verdient die Klausel bei Private-Equity-gehaltenen Gesellschaften, wenn ein Sponsor-Vertreter im Verwaltungsrat sitzt und das Portfoliounternehmen später gegen den Verwaltungsrat vorgeht."
    }
  }
}