Woolum and Dr. Butcher have more than simply the casual connection of having the same insurance company, as they had worked side by side for twenty years in the same community hospital. In factoring these considerations into its estimation of probative value, the trial court properly exercised its discretion under KRE 403. Admittedly, as Appellant contends, these factors indicate bias on their own, isolated from the issue of common insurance. Notwithstanding this independent impeachment value, these factors also develop a link between the shared insurance and Dr. Butcher’s bias against this malpractice claim. They demonstrate that Dr. Butcher is no average, passive policyholder, but instead a practitioner very concerned with the affairs of his insurer. See Wallace, 949 S.W.2d at 626 (<HOLDING>). Based on these factors, the court made the
recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel recognizing distinction between smith and mcdonnell recognizing distinction between two types of waiver recognizing distinction between mere policyholder and someone actively interested in his insurers affairs recognizing this distinction