In Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007), 148 Cal.App.4th 1062, the insured made a claim against her homeowner's policy for structural damage in her living room, including failing floorboards. The damage was, her expert concluded, caused by a water conducting fungus. (Id. at p. 1067.) The homeowner's policy issued by Allstate excluded coverage for loss caused by "wet or dry rot" and for loss caused by "collapse." (Id. at p. 1068.) It provided " ' "additional coverage," ' " however, for the " ' "entire collapse" ' " of all or any portion of the house, where the collapse was " ' "a sudden and accidental direct physical loss caused by ... hidden decay of the building structure ... ." ' " (Id. at p. 1067.) Allstate relied on the dry rot exclusion to deny coverage. The insured asked Allstate to reconsider based only on her contention that the fungus was not "dry rot." Allstate declined. It did not investigate whether the "additional coverage" for "entire collapse" might also apply. The insured contended she was unaware of the "additional coverage" because Allstate had not provided her with a complete copy of her homeowner's policy, despite her request for one. (Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075.) The Jordan court reversed a summary adjudication in favor of Allstate on the insured's bad faith claim because the reasonableness of Allstate's investigation was a disputed factual issue. "Where an insurer denies coverage but a reasonable investigation would have disclosed facts showing the claim was covered, the insurer's failure to investigate breaches its implied covenant. The insurer cannot claim a 'genuine dispute' regarding coverage in such cases because, by failing to investigate, it has deprived itself of the ability to make a fair evaluation of the claim. Thus, although Allstate's interpretation of the dry rot exclusion was reasonable, it also had a duty to investigate the insured's coverage claim that was based on the 'additional coverage' provisions relating to an 'entire collapse,' which ... was also reasonable and consistent with the insured's objectively reasonable expectations." (Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 1074.) A trier of fact could, the Jordan court concluded, find that Allstate unreasonably failed to consider the "additional coverage," even though the insured's claim did not mention that policy provision and even though she never provided Allstate with proof of an actual collapse. (Id. at pp. 1074-1075.)