Although settlement negotiations and offers are inadmissible (i) to show the validity or invalidity of a claim when validity is in dispute, (ii) to show the amount of damages when the amount is in dispute, or (iii) to impeach by showing a prior inconsistent statement or specific contradiction, such settlement offers and negotiations are admissible if they are used to impeach a witness by showing the bias or interest of the witness.

Brown v. Bowen, 668 F. Supp. 146, 150 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (holding, in plaintiff daughter's claim for surviving child's insurance benefits, that the written acknowledgment of paternity by Otis Fultun was admissible....If the declarant is unavailable, Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(4) or a comparable State rules recognizes a hearsay exception for (A) A statement concerning the declarant's own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; or (B) a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other's family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.

United States v. Miles, 290 F.3d 1341, 1352-1353 (11th Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission of witness Montcalm's former testimony because "it is clear that [defendant] had precisely the same interest in....The hearsay exception for prior testimony applies in a criminal case only if the if the party against whom the testimony is now offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony in the prior proceeding by direct, cross, or redirect examination. The exception applies in a civil action or proceeding only if the party against whom the testimony is now offered or a predecessor in interest had an opportunity and similar motive in the prior proceeding to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

Cf. Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, pin? (1995) (while addressing requirements for use of prior inconsistent statement to rehabilitate witness, Court discusses and recognizes the requirements of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) for nonhearsay treatment of prior consistent...A prior statement of a witness is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence if the prior statement is consistent with the witness' testimony at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered, the prior statement is offered to rebut a express or implied charge of recent fabrication or motive, and the witness who made the prior statement testifies and is subject to cross-examination at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered.