{"id":891514,"date":"2017-01-05T16:26:38","date_gmt":"2017-01-05T23:26:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=891514"},"modified":"2017-01-05T16:26:38","modified_gmt":"2017-01-05T23:26:38","slug":"court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective Flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards"},"content":{"rendered":"

Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore | Haight Brown & Bonsteel<\/a> | December 29, 2016<\/p>\n

In Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Const.<\/em> (No.G050759, filed 12\/27\/16), a California appeals court held that the knowing installation of flooring over a vapor-emitting slab was not an accident or occurrence, entitling the insurer to reimbursement of money paid as damages to settle a construction defect suit. But the court further held that there was no right of reimbursement for the portion of money payable under the policy\u2019s supplementary payments coverage as costs for contractual prevailing party attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n

Navigators insured Moorefield, the general contractor for a Best Buy store. Testing in construction revealed a vapor emission rate from the concrete slab above the approved standard for the flooring. The contractor\u2019s personnel testified that it was normal to install the flooring regardless. Notwithstanding, the contractor\u2019s personnel testified that they consulted the owner and were directed to proceed. In doing so, the contractor also expressly released the flooring subcontractor from any warranty claims.<\/p>\n

The flooring began to fail in the first year, and continued for another six years. The subsequent owner of the building sued the original owner, resulting in cross-complaints among the various parties. Navigators defended the contractor under a reservation of rights and the case was ultimately settled, with Navigators paying its $1 million policy limit, with a further $310,000 coming from other sources.<\/p>\n

Navigators then sued for declaratory relief, alleging it had no duty to defend or indemnify the contractor. The trial court agreed that there was no duty to indemnify, because the knowing installation of flooring when vapor rates were above specification was not an accident or occurrence. Further, the trial court ruled that Navigators had no obligation for any part of the settlement attributable to contractual prevailing party attorney\u2019s fees, because the contractor\u2019s \u201cpotential liability arose from a non-covered claim.\u201d<\/p>\n

The appeals court agreed that there was no accident or occurrence, but held that Navigators was nonetheless obligated for supplementary payments. The appeals court pointed out that the trial court had denied Navigators\u2019 summary judgment motion, thus signaling unanswered fact questions and a duty to defend.<\/p>\n

The appeals court cited Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club of Southern California<\/em> (2009) 47 Cal.4th 302; Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court<\/em> (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 388; Merced Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mendez<\/em> (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 41; and State Farm General Ins. Co. v. Frake<\/em> (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 568, on the occurrence issue stating:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe evidence at trial established that Moorefield knew at the time that two separate tests had shown the moisture vapor emission rate from the concrete slab exceeded specifications. Cote discussed the moisture vapor emission rate results with representatives of DBO and Best Buy and the decision was made, based on a cost benefit analysis, to install the flooring. Because Moorefield, the insured, performed a deliberate act, there was no accident unless \u2018some additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening occurs that produces the damage.\u2019 [] Such was not the case. After installation of the flooring, nothing else happened that might have caused the flooring to fail…. We conclude Moorefield\u2019s conduct was not an accident because it was a deliberate decision made with knowledge that the moisture vapor emission rate from the concrete slab exceeded specifications. The damage was not produced by an additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening.\u201d<\/p>\n

Consequently, Navigators was entitled to reimbursement for any moneys paid as damages for property damage. However, the Moorefield<\/em> court nonetheless held that the supplementary payments provision applied to some portion of the $1 million paid by Navigators toward settlement. Specifically, the court noted that the original construction contract had an attorney fee provision and, when authorized by contract, fees are allowable as costs of suit. (Code Civ. Proc., \u00a7 1033.5(a)(10).) Thus, attorney fees incurred by the owner would have been an item of costs falling within the supplementary payments provision of the Policy. And because supplementary payments coverage for costs is a function of the duty to defend (State Farm General Ins. Co. v. Mintarsih<\/em> (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 274), Navigators would have been obligated to the extent that the settlement included a component for attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n

In reaching that conclusion, the Moorefield<\/em> court rejected a claim that any attorney\u2019s fees would have been \u201cdamages\u201d not \u201ccosts\u201d (and therefore also within the policy limits). The court cited Golden Eagle Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of the West<\/em> (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 837, for the distinction between attorney\u2019s fees awarded as damages pursuant to an indemnity or hold-harmless provision and those awarded as costs of suit by virtue of a prevailing party fee clause. The Moorefield<\/em> court noted that in contrast to contractual attorney\u2019s fees coming within the supplementary payments coverage for costs, fees awarded under indemnity agreements typically fall within CGL coverage for insured contracts, and stated:<\/p>\n

\u201cGolden Eagle<\/em> dealt with a situation in which the contractor\/indemnitee sought indemnity from the subcontractor\/indemnitor for the damages the contractor incurred as a result of a third party lawsuit. If an indemnitor fails to defend an indemnitee against a third party, the indemnitee may recover, as damages, its attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the third party claim. [] In that situation, the damages incurred by the indemnitee include the attorney fees and costs it incurred defending the third party lawsuit. That is because, as the Golden Eagle<\/em> court noted, \u2018it is established that the indemnitee\u2019s attorney fees constitute an \u2018item of damages\u2019 for the indemnitor\u2019s breach of its indemnity obligation.\u2019 … In this case, however, Moorefield did not seek indemnification from its concrete and flooring subcontractors [] for damages Moorefield had to pay to [the owner]. Moorefield was sued by [the owner] for breach of the Construction Contract, negligence, and breach of implied warranty to recover damages [the owner] incurred for construction defects. [The owner] sought attorney fees from Moorefield based on the attorney fees provision in the Construction Contract…. Moorefield\u2019s liability to [the owner] for attorney fees therefore would be as a cost of suit, not as damages.\u201d<\/p>\n

Having reached those determinations, the Moorefield<\/em> court concluded by ruling that on remand, the burden was on Navigators, not the insured, to establish the proper allocation: \u201cThe insurer, not the insured, has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that \u2018the settlement payments were allocable to claims not actually covered, and the defense costs were allocable to claims not even potentially covered.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore | Haight Brown & Bonsteel | December 29, 2016 In Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Const. (No.G050759, filed 12\/27\/16), a California appeals court held that the knowing installation of flooring over a vapor-emitting slab was not an accident or occurrence, entitling the insurer to reimbursement of money paid… Continue reading Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective Flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,30,3],"tags":[309,528,88,9885],"class_list":["post-891514","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-defects","category-general-liability-policy","category-insurance-claims","tag-occurrence","tag-attorney-fees","tag-california","tag-defective-flooring","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nCourt Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective Flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"California appeals court held that the knowing installation of flooring over a vapor-emitting slab was not an accident or occurrence\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective Flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"California appeals court held that the knowing installation of flooring over a vapor-emitting slab was not an accident or occurrence\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-01-05T23:26:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective Flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-01-05T23:26:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/\"},\"wordCount\":1082,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"\\\"Occurrence\\\"\",\"Attorney Fees\",\"california\",\"Defective Flooring\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction Defects\",\"General Liability Policy\",\"Insurance Claims\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/\",\"name\":\"Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective Flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-01-05T23:26:38+00:00\",\"description\":\"California appeals court held that the knowing installation of flooring over a vapor-emitting slab was not an accident or occurrence\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective Flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"California appeals court held that the knowing installation of flooring over a vapor-emitting slab was not an accident or occurrence","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective Flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"California appeals court held that the knowing installation of flooring over a vapor-emitting slab was not an accident or occurrence","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2017-01-05T23:26:38+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective Flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards","datePublished":"2017-01-05T23:26:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/"},"wordCount":1082,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["\"Occurrence\"","Attorney Fees","california","Defective Flooring"],"articleSection":["Construction Defects","General Liability Policy","Insurance Claims"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/","name":"Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective Flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-01-05T23:26:38+00:00","description":"California appeals court held that the knowing installation of flooring over a vapor-emitting slab was not an accident or occurrence","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-finds-no-occurrence-installation-defective-flooring-explains-coverage-attorney-fee-awards\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3JVg","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891514","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=891514"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891514\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":891515,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891514\/revisions\/891515"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=891514"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=891514"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=891514"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}