Opinion ID: 2671506
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Evans job (basis for Counts 22 and 23)

Text: 7 In 2005, DRI performed restoration work on a property in Boulder, Colorado, owned by Kent and Marilyn Evans and insured by State Farm. DRI employee Jason Cain sent State Farm a DRI estimate that included a subcontractor line item in the amount of $267.52 for “Electronics Cleaning per RescueTech.” Id. at 336. Included with the line item was the following statement: “Electronics cleaning includes 20% O&P.” Id. Rescue Tech provided DRI with an estimate in the amount of $223.03, but ultimately agreed to accept $178.42 from DRI for the work. Cain also sent State Farm a DRI supplemental estimate that included subcontractor line items in the amount of $3,550 for “PAINTING . . . Per CertaPro Painting,” id. at 347, and in the amount of $5,899.85 for “CONCRETE - garage slab,” id. at 348. Along with the supplemental estimate, Cain sent State Farm the false proposals from these subcontractors that matched the dollar figures listed on the supplemental estimate. In fact, however, CertaPro charged DRI $1,760, and TBD (the subcontractor that performed the concrete work) charged DRI $4,719.88. 1 1 Cain’s supplemental estimate also included a subcontractor line item for “Electrical Rewire - per proposal from Ruby Electric” in the amount of $1,678.63. Supp. ROA at 348. According to the government, Ruby Electric actually charged DRI less than this amount. Unfortunately, however, the exhibits included in the record on appeal do not fully substantiate the government’s assertion on this point, and thus we do not rely on it for purposes of our analysis. Relatedly, we note that the exhibits included in the record suggest, but do (continued...) 8