
Crown Resorts sued RiverStone International in the Supreme Court of Victoria after the insurer refused to pay its share of a $51 million AML-related class-action settlement. AIG paid its primary layer while RiverStone, holding 50% of excess risk, declined. Crown seeks the unpaid sum plus interest; the final settlement installment of $19.2 million is due by May 10 next year.
SCCG Take — The case exposes gaps in how excess insurers treat regulatory settlements lacking admitted liability, requiring operators to tighten policy language and negotiation records before similar claims arise.
Crown Resorts has filed suit against RiverStone International in the Supreme Court of Victoria after the insurer declined to pay under excess policies tied to a class-action settlement.
The settlement resolved claims of anti-money laundering deficiencies and transparency failures in the operator’s junket and VIP programs. Crown Resorts agreed to pay AUD 72.5 million ($51 million) without admitting liability. AIG, the primary insurer, contributed AUD 7.5 million under its policy terms.
RiverStone International carried 50% of the risk in the fourth and fifth excess layers yet refused payment. Court documents show the insurer told Crown Resorts to negotiate the matter as though uninsured. The exact reason for that instruction is not public.
Crown Resorts now seeks recovery of the unpaid amount plus interest. The filings do not state the precise sum claimed. The settlement itself is payable in three installments. Two have been completed; the final AUD 27.5 million ($19.2 million) is due by 10 May next year.
The refusal triggered the litigation. The policies at issue were secured precisely to address legal exposures of the type that materialized in 2020. Primary coverage responded. The excess layer did not, producing the current dispute in the Victorian court.
Resolution of this coverage action could return funds that offset part of the original outlay. Blackstone acquired Crown Resorts in 2022, taking the company private. The outcome will test how excess insurers interpret obligations when regulatory settlements occur without formal liability findings.
This insurance dispute is confined to the specific policies and instructions described in the filings. Operators cannot assume uniform responses across carriers when regulatory matters convert into civil payouts.
Reporting: GamblingNews
Generated by SCCG’s automated editorial system from published source reporting. SCCG Management holds editorial responsibility.
Gaming, betting and prediction markets — the desk’s read, every weekday.
Subscribe →