of a fiduciary relationship.”). As for whether the breach must be material to the transaction, we need not address this argument because the case at hand satisfied any such requirement. The very reason bribes were paid to the adjusters was to obtain favorable results in settlements. The insurance companies, acting as reasonable entities, were bound to have considered the fact that their employees had a financial interest in settling cases to be important information with respect to those settlements. See United States v. Dinome, 86 F.3d 277, 280 (2d Cir.1996) (affirming jury instruction charging that a representation was material if “a reasonable person might have considered [it] important in making a decision”); see also United States v. Rodolitz, 786 F.2d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Appellants next contend that the government
holding the appellant needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her husbands death fell within the terms of the insurance policy holding that unless the collision resulted in a total loss the measure of recovery is the difference between the fair market value of the vehicle in the condition in which it was immediately prior to the collision and its value thereafter recognizing that enhancement requires control over a participant in the scheme not only control over the scheme itself holding in a case involving falsified insurance claims that the government needed to prove only that defendant employed a deceptive scheme intending to prevent the insurer from determining for itself a fair value of recovery holding in the context of the criminal false claims act that to prove falsity the government only had to prove that the statement was known to be untrue at the time the defendant made it