JORDAN v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer's denial of coverage based on a reasonable interpretation of policy exclusion does not, with respect to an action for bad faith, excuse its failure to investigate other possible bases for claim, such as "additional coverage" provisions that would provide coverage independent of the exclusion. Where insured sued insurer for failing to cover a "collapse" of plaintiff's house allegedly caused by a fungus, evidence presented by plaintiff including evidence that adjuster disregarded experts; recommendations that a structural engineer be retained by insurer to inspect the property; that insurer never asked its expert to determine whether there had been a collapse; that despite internal correspondence about the possibility that "collapse" coverage might apply, insurer never communicated anything to insured about this coverage potential until insured's attorney finally received a copy of the policy (which he had been requesting) and noted the collapse provision; and that insurer gave adjuster complete autonomy to decide whether a collapse occurred, despite the fact that she had no credentials or background for making structural engineering decisions and refused to interview insured's expert solely because he was hired by insured established triable issue as to whether insurer conduct a full, fair, thorough, and timely investigation of insured's claim as it related to and relied on the "entire collapse" provisions of the policy. While the Unfair Insurance Practices Act cannot be the basis for a tort action, expert testimony that insurer violated several provisions of the act was properly admitted to support plaintiff's claim that such violations breached the implied covenant of good faith.
Comments on JORDAN v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY