A district court judge on Wednesday dismissed a putative class-action lawsuit filed against Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. by a client who claimed the Boston-based insurer overcharged for workers compensation insurance.

Judge Denise Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that Bridgeport, Connecticut-based Valley Container Co. failed to show that the insurer engaged in breach of contract or unjust enrichment or violated the  Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Massachusetts consumer protection laws.

The complaint, Valley Container Co. v. Liberty Mutual Inc., filed Oct. 15, 2019, alleged that Liberty Mutual and its affiliates “systematically, willfully and unlawfully” overcharged companies in at least 35 states for workers compensation insurance and engaged in misconduct by “knowingly” violating laws governing workers comp insurance, “directly resulting in excessive insurance premiums being charged” to customers.

Valley Container Co. argued that Liberty Mutual accepted a $47,000 workers compensation claim and later recovered all but $120 from a third-party lawsuit but did not report the recovery to the Boca Raton, Florida-based National Council on Compensation Insurance. The complaint further claimed that as a result, the experience modification rating used to determine Valley Container’s premium in 2014 and 2015 was artificially inflated and that Liberty Mutual failed to reimburse the company for the excess premium.

The judge held that Liberty Mutual complied with NCCI’s statistics reporting rules when it corrected its prior reports to reflect the subrogation it received and noted that if any inflated premiums resulted from the insurer’s reporting, it would not have benefited Liberty Mutual — but subsequent insurers — because Valley Container only purchased one covered year through Liberty Mutual.

The judge also dismissed Valley Container’s RICO allegations, holding that even if Liberty Mutual sent a report to NCCI that it knew was inaccurate or incomplete, it does not satisfy the requirement of “multiple related acts” to allege racketeering activities.