and its noncompete provision." Id. at 283. IMN asserts that under Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass'n, 449 N.E.2d 276 (Ind.1983), a party cannot claim the benefits under a transaction or instrument and, at the same time, repudiate its obligations. Keeping in mind the previously stated summary judgment standard of review, we also note that "the existence of facts necessary to constitute waiver is ordinarily a question of fact[.]" Pohle v. Cheatham, 724 N.E.2d 655, 658 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (clarifying that when only the inferences and legal conclusions to be drawn from the agreed upon facts are argued, the question of waiver is proper for the court to consider as a matter of law on summary judgment); see also Cablevision of Chicago v. Colby Cable Corp., 417 N.E.2d 348, 357 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (<HOLDING>). Again, the Agreement included the following
holding agreed judgment presents question of waiver or estoppel rather than question of jurisdiction holding it is a question of fact holding the question of whether insurance companys requests were reasonable under policy language was a fact question holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim holding that estoppel was a question of fact