Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) in Language Models (LMs) is key to improving their safety and reliability. Evaluations often use metrics like AUROC to assess how well UQ methods (e.g., negative sequence probabilities) correlate with task correctness functions (e.g., ROUGE-L). We show that mutual biases-when both UQ methods and correctness functions are biased by the same factors-systematically distort evaluation. First, we formally prove that any mutual bias non-randomly skews AUROC rankings, compromising benchmark integrity. Second, we confirm this happens empirically by testing 7 widely used correctness functions, from lexical-based and embedding-based metrics to LM-as-a-judge approaches, across 4 datasets × 4 models × 8 UQ methods. Our analysis showsthat length biases in correctness functions distort UQ assessments by interacting with length biases in UQ methods. We identify LM-as-a-judge methods as the least length-biased, offering a promising path for a fairer UQ evaluation.