With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that plan administrator that was also insurer operated under conflict of interest
B: holding that a structural conflict of interest exists when an insurer acts as both the plan administrator and the funding source
C: holding the district court erred by finding an automatic conflict of interest merely because insurer and administrator were the same
D: 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
C.