not the de facto Plan Administrator as plaintiff claims. Rather, Webco claims that Gan-non was the one who reviewed the claim file, rendered the decision, and considered the exclusions. Webco also notes that Gannon reached a decision before any corporate involvement from Nortek. Thus, Webco argues plaintiff has failed to show any procedural irregularities and how these alleged irregularities impacted Gan-non’s impartiality. Under these facts, the Court finds that Lankford has not demonstrated a “palpable conflict of interest” nor serious procedural irregularities. Just because an entity funds a plan and is also the plan administrator does not automatically give rise to a palpable conflict of interest. See Davolt v. Executive Comm. of O’Reilly Auto., 206 F.3d 806, 809-10 (8th Cir.2000)(<HOLDING>). The Court eon- eludes, however, that even if
holding that plan administrator that was also insurer operated under conflict of interest holding that when the insurer is also the plan administrator we have recognized something akin to a rebuttable presumption of a palpable conflict of interest holding that a structural conflict of interest exists when an insurer acts as both the plan administrator and the funding source holding that it is wrong to assume a financial conflict of interest from the fact that the plan administrator is also the insurer holding the district court erred by finding an automatic conflict of interest merely because insurer and administrator were the same