affected its decision. See Green v. Union Sec. Ins. Co., 646 F.3d 1042, 1053 (8th Cir.2011) (finding no evidence insurance company’s conflict of interest influenced its denial of benefits when there was no indication company had history of biased claim decisions). Cf. Chronister v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.) 563 F.3d 773, 776 (8th Cir.2009) (noting that insurance company’s conflict of interest was one of several factors pointing to abuse of discretion; conflict evidenced by company’s recognized history' of biased claims administration, including arbitrary denial of claims and failure to follow own claims-handling procedure). Accordingly, the Court will give MetLife’s conflict some weight when determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion. See Khoury, 615 F.3d at 954 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations omitted); Manning v. Am.
holding the existence of a possible conflict required remand for a determination of whether an actual conflict of interest existed and holding a new trial would be required if an actual conflict existed holding that district court was required to give conflict some weight but the existence of the conflict alone was not determinative when record contained no evidence of claims administration history or of claims administrators efforts to reduce potential bias and to promote accuracy recognizing the conflict recognizing conflict holding that there was a valid waiver of defendants right to conflictfree representation despite the courts failure to inform the defendant of the existence of a potential conflict of interest since the defendant was well aware of the factual basis which created the conflict