regarding Reagan’s medical condition on his medical file, not on any bias or prejudice toward it. Finally, UNUM claims that the fact that it may have offered Reagan a lump sum settlement is irrelevant. Reagan’s last two arguments deserve little attention. Although the partiality of a plan administrator and of a physician upon whose opinion a plan administrator relied is a factor which the Court may consider, Chalmers v. Quaker Oats Co., 61 F.3d 1340, 1344 (7th Cir.1995), the Court finds no evidence that Dr. Kurkjian’s opinion was swayed by any bias or prejudice toward UNUM. In fact, although given the opportunity to do so, Dr. Laping (Reagan’s personal physician) did not contradict or disagree with Dr. Kurkjian’s assessment of Reagan’s medical prognosis F.2d 418, 423 (7th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Thus, whether or not UNUM made Reagan a
recognizing rule holding that the bia rule is reasonable holding that insurance companies may limit their own liability through freedom of contract although exhaustion clauses may encourage parties to litigate rather than settle such decisions were better left to the legislature holding that cause exists where some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsels efforts to comply with the states procedural rule holding that the objective of rule 408 is to encourage settlements