Man who fixed own kitchen defrauded insurance company

Nicholas Thomas Oettinger, 33, did not react when Chief Justice Helen Murrell found him guilty on Friday of attempting, by deception, to dishonestly obtain a financial advantage from an insurance firm over a one-year period in 2007 and 2008.

But the judge acquitted the offender of a second fraud charge from October 2007.

During the two-day judge-alone trial, the court heard the insurance company had agreed to foot the bill for repairs for water-damage to the kitchen of Oettinger’s Charnwood home.

Oettinger, who worked in companies that specialised in kitchen and bathroom renovations, quoted the insurer to fix the damage through the business of a carpenter he had previously hired as a subcontractor.

But when the carpenter pulled out of the repair-work, Oettinger registered a company in the man’s name.

He then completed the work himself, with the help of friends and family and using materials on hand, and billed the insurance company from the freshly created company.

Oettinger admitted he had intended to make a commercial profit from the work, saying the invoice had been market value.

He also acknowledged he had created the business in the carpenter’s name with the intention of misleading the insurance company into thinking the tradesman had done the work.

Chief Justice Murrell rejected defence submissions that, provided the works approved by the insurer had been completed as agreed, it would not be dishonest for the claimant to undertake the work themselves and make a profit.

“Ordinary people believe that insurers should only compensate loss, and should not be the unwitting vehicle for insured persons to make a ‘commercial profit’," the judge wrote in her reasons.

“Further, I am satisfied the accused was well aware that these are the standards of ordinary [person].

“That is why he went to so much trouble to form and utilise the company … and to convey the impression that [the carpenter] had undertaken the approved work by utilising an invoice that had the general appearance of the quotation.”

The judge found Oettinger had been an unreliable witness in whose evidence the court could place no weight.

“There can be no doubt that the accused was prepared to engage in sharp practices for personal financial gain, without qualm," she said.

“I found the accused to be a glib witness … [who], at times, … evaded admitting obvious wrong.

“There is no doubt that the insurance payout that the accused intended to obtain was a ‘financial advantage’ to him.”