because of its dual role, operates under an inherent conflict of interest. See Welch v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 382 F.3d 1078, 1087 (10th Cir.2004) (finding a conflict of interest under similar circumstances). As both insurer and plan administrator, Hartford “may favor, consciously or unconsciously, its interests over the interests of the plan beneficiaries.” Fought, 379 F.3d at 1003. But the Supreme Court expressly considered the effect of an inherent conflict of interest on the appropriate standard of review and held that, while a judge should take into account the conflict of interest as a factor in its decision, the court should still apply an arbitrary and capricious standard. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 116, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Glenn,
holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence holding that it is not necessary or desirable for courts to create special burdenofproof rules or other special procedural or evidentiary rules focused narrowly upon the evaluatorpayor conflict holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery recognizing special circumstances exception holding that new rules of criminal procedural are generally not retroactive