In Lamora v. United Auto. Ins. Co., No. 00-031 AP, 8 Fla. L. Weekly. Supp. 542, 542 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. June 19, 2001), the circuit court held that the reasonableness of an insured's conduct is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the court. See id.; see also Montero v. Oak Cas. Ins. Co., Nos. 99-435 AP & 00-008 AP, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 601, (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. July 24, 2001) (holding that where the insured presented substantial evidence from which the jury could have concluded that he had not received notification of the medical examination, and therefore did not unreasonably fail to attend, it was error for "the trial judge to 'sit as a seventh juror' and set aside the jury's verdict") (quoting Perry, 597 So. 2d at 822). Consequently, the directed verdict was premature because United had not demonstrated the absence of any material issue of fact for the jury (i.e., the reasonableness of the failure or application to prior benefits).