a jury question.” (citing Pirelli-Armstrong Tire Co. v. Reynolds, 562 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1997); Harvey v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 388 F.2d 123, 125 (5th Cir.1968)); Hepp v. Zinnel, 199 N.W.2d 68, 69 (Iowa 1972) (“[W]hat is ‘reasonable’ is not black or white. Such an issue is peculiarly for the fact finder.” (citing Appling v. Stuck, 164 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1969)); cf. Mcllra-vy v. N. River Ins. Co., 653 N.W.2d 323, 333 (Iowa 2002) (opining “reasonableness of the denial of a workers’ compensation claim by an insurer” is ordinarily a question of fact); State v. Arnold, 543 N.W.2d 600, 604 (Iowa 1996) (stating “reasonableness or excessiveness of the punishment was a question for the jury” (citation omitted)); Hoekstra v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 382 N.W.2d 100, 106 (Iowa 1986) (<HOLDING>); Zohn v. Menard, Inc., 598 N.W.2d 323, 326
holding that the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment or while performing duties related to the conduct of the employers business for purposes of insurance coverage were questions of fact that precluded summary judgment particularly since there was a question regarding the employees intent in performing the act in question holding that estoppel was a question of fact 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 generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact