exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution. Rule 408, SCRE. In the instant case, nothing in the record suggests McCutcheon and the hospital had ever negotiated anything at the time the check was written or that either party ever disputed whether McCutcheon was bound to repay the loans. As such, rather than sending the check in “an attempt to curb further litigation,” the testimony at trial affords only the conclusion that McCutcheon intended the check as her first payment on the loan. See Commerce Ctr. of Greenville, Inc. v. W. Powers McElveen & Assocs., 347 S.C. 545, 558, 556 S.E.2d 718, 725 (Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>). Nothing in the rule against settlement
holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish an agency relationship for service to be effective holding that the parties relationship was not lengthy enough to establish an ordinary course of dealings as the first transaction between the parties was subject to the preference action holding that correspondence between defendant and its liability carriers was protected recognizing correspondence appeared to establish a settlement relationship between the parties given the letters presented an attempt to curb further litigation recognizing that not all correspondence between a lawyer and a client are privileged depending on whether the two have a personal relationship separate and apart from the lawyerclient relationship