{"id":891831,"date":"2017-03-23T15:32:26","date_gmt":"2017-03-23T21:32:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=891831"},"modified":"2017-03-23T15:32:26","modified_gmt":"2017-03-23T21:32:26","slug":"pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"Pollution Exclusion Precluded Coverage for Claims Arising from Alleged Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, Oregon District Court Rules"},"content":{"rendered":"

Steven A. Meyerowitz | Law.com<\/a> | March 21, 2017<\/p>\n

A federal district court in Oregon has ruled that carbon monoxide was a \u201cpollutant\u201d as defined in a commercial general liability (\u201cCGL\u201d) insurance policy such that the policy\u2019s pollution exclusion served to exclude coverage for claims arising from alleged carbon monoxide poisoning.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

The Case<\/em><\/p>\n

Lawsuits filed in an Oregon state court against Victory Construction LLC, dba Premier Pools and Spas of Oregon, and Vitaly Shavlovskiy (together, \u201cVictory Construction\u201d) alleged negligence in the installation and ventilation of a natural gas swimming pool heater and negligence in failing to warn of the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning associated with operating the heater in an insufficiently ventilated area.<\/p>\n

The state court lawsuits alleged that, as a result of Victory Construction\u2019s negligence, excessive carbon monoxide filled the home and caused the plaintiffs to be sick. The complaints sought damages resulting from the release of carbon monoxide from the heater.<\/p>\n

Victory Construction sought defense and indemnity from Colony Insurance Company, which had issued a CGL policy to Victory Construction.<\/p>\n

Colony Insurance contended that the policy\u2019s pollution exclusion precluded coverage for the claims against Victory Construction arising from the alleged carbon monoxide poisoning, and went to court seeking a determination to that effect.<\/p>\n

The Colony Insurance Policy<\/em><\/p>\n

The Colony Insurance policy\u2019s pollution exclusion provided that the policy did not apply to:<\/p>\n

(1) \u201cBodily injury,\u201d \u201cproperty damage,\u201d or \u201cpersonal and advertising injury\u201d which would not have occurred in whole or part but for the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of \u201chazardous materials\u201d at any time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It defined:<\/p>\n

hazardous materials<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

as:<\/p>\n

\u201cpollutants,\u201d lead, asbestos, silica and materials containing them<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It defined:<\/p>\n

pollutants<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

as:<\/p>\n

any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The District Court\u2019s Decision<\/em><\/p>\n

The district court, applying Oregon law, granted Colony Insurance\u2019s motion, finding that the \u201conly plausible interpretation\u201d of the policy\u2019s terms resulted in the conclusion that carbon monoxide was \u201ca pollutant.\u201d<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the district court held, the pollution exclusion applied to damages caused by carbon monoxide.<\/p>\n

In its decision, the district court explained that the pollution exclusion excluded coverage for injury or damage caused by \u201cirritants\u201d or \u201ccontaminants\u201d \u2013 terms, the district court noted, that the policy did not define.<\/p>\n

It then ruled that, based on a \u201cplain meaning analysis,\u201d carbon monoxide was either an \u201cirritant\u201d or \u201ccontaminant\u201d and, thus, was a \u201cpollutant\u201d under the policy.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the district court concluded, Colony Insurance did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Victory Construction.<\/p>\n

The case is Colony Ins. Co. v. Victory Construction LLC<\/em>, No. 3:16\u2013cv\u201300457\u2013HZ (D. Ore. March 9, 2017). Attorneys involved include: Andrew C. Lauersdorf, MALONEY LAUERSDORF REINER, PC, 1111 E. Burnside St., Ste. 300, Portland, OR 97214, Attorney for Plaintiff. Christopher B. Rounds, ROUNDS LAW OFFICE PC, 1409 Franklin St., No. 217, Vancouver, WA 98660, Attorney for Defendants.<\/p>\n

FC&S Legal Comment<\/em><\/p>\n

Many other courts also have concluded that carbon monoxide was a \u201cpollutant\u201d for purposes of an insurance policy\u2019s pollution exclusion. See<\/em>, Claudia G. Catalano, What Constitutes \u201cPollutant,\u201d \u201cContaminant,\u201d \u201cIrritant,\u201d or \u201cWaste\u201d Within Meaning of Absolute or Total Pollution Exclusion in Liability Insurance Policy,\u201d 98 A.L.R. 5th 193 (2002) (electronic version updated weekly) (collecting cases). See also, e.g.,<\/em> Church Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clay Ctr. Christian Church, 746 F.3d 375 (8th Cir. 2014) (predicting that the Nebraska Supreme Court would conclude that carbon monoxide was a pollutant because it was a gas that could render air \u201cunfit for use\u201d if introduced at high levels); Century Sur. Co. v. Casino W., Inc., 677 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that some courts have found the pollution exclusion \u201cclear and unambiguous when applied to carbon monoxide poisoning\u201d); Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Country Oaks Apartments Ltd., 566 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that \u201c[i]t could not be clearer\u201d that carbon monoxide is a pollutant under the exclusion and rejecting the argument that \u201ca substance must generally or usually act as an irritant or contaminant to constitute a \u2018pollutant\u2019\u201d); Longaberger Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 201 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 1999) (unpublished decision) (affirming district court holding that carbon monoxide is a pollutant); Shaw v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 6:15\u2013CV\u2013686\u2013ORL\u2013TBS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2016), reconsideration denied<\/em>, No. 6:15\u2013CV\u2013686\u2013ORL\u2013TBS (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2016) (\u201cwhile carbon monoxide is a naturally occurring gas that is present in the air we breathe, it is also an irritant, contaminant, and toxic at the level of concentration experienced by the [plaintiffs.] Therefore, carbon monoxide clearly and unambiguously fits within the definition of a \u2018pollutant\u2019 under the Policy.\u201d); Midwest Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wolters, 831 N.W.2d 628 (Minn. 2013) (\u201cWhile there may be substances that are difficult to establish as \u2018pollutants\u2019 for purposes of the absolute pollution exclusion, carbon monoxide is not one of them.\u201d).<\/p>\n

Other courts, it also should be noted, have reached the opposite conclusion. See, e.g.,<\/em> Apana v. TIG Ins. Co., 574 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Steven A. Meyerowitz | Law.com | March 21, 2017 A federal district court in Oregon has ruled that carbon monoxide was a \u201cpollutant\u201d as defined in a commercial general liability (\u201cCGL\u201d) insurance policy such that the policy\u2019s pollution exclusion served to exclude coverage for claims arising from alleged carbon monoxide poisoning. The Case Lawsuits filed… Continue reading Pollution Exclusion Precluded Coverage for Claims Arising from Alleged Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, Oregon District Court Rules<\/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":[4,30,9721],"tags":[9895,19,23,320,530,56],"class_list":["post-891831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-defects","category-general-liability-policy","category-property-damage","tag-advise-consult","tag-construction-defects-2","tag-insurance-coverage","tag-oregon","tag-pollution-exclusion","tag-property-damage","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nPollution Exclusion Precluded Coverage for Claims Arising from Alleged Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, Oregon District Court Rules - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"carbon monoxide was a \u201cpollutant\u201d as defined in a (\u201cCGL\u201d) insurance policy such that the policy\u2019s pollution exclusion served to exclude coverage\" \/>\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\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pollution Exclusion Precluded Coverage for Claims Arising from Alleged Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, Oregon District Court Rules - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"carbon monoxide was a \u201cpollutant\u201d as defined in a (\u201cCGL\u201d) insurance policy such that the policy\u2019s pollution exclusion served to exclude coverage\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/\" \/>\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=\"2017-03-23T21:32:26+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Pollution Exclusion Precluded Coverage for Claims Arising from Alleged Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, Oregon District Court Rules\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-03-23T21:32:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/\"},\"wordCount\":842,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"construction defects\",\"insurance coverage\",\"Oregon\",\"Pollution Exclusion\",\"property damage\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction Defects\",\"General Liability Policy\",\"Property Damage\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/\",\"name\":\"Pollution Exclusion Precluded Coverage for Claims Arising from Alleged Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, Oregon District Court Rules - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-03-23T21:32:26+00:00\",\"description\":\"carbon monoxide was a \u201cpollutant\u201d as defined in a (\u201cCGL\u201d) insurance policy such that the policy\u2019s pollution exclusion served to exclude coverage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"Pollution Exclusion Precluded Coverage for Claims Arising from Alleged Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, Oregon District Court Rules - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"carbon monoxide was a \u201cpollutant\u201d as defined in a (\u201cCGL\u201d) insurance policy such that the policy\u2019s pollution exclusion served to exclude coverage","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\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pollution Exclusion Precluded Coverage for Claims Arising from Alleged Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, Oregon District Court Rules - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"carbon monoxide was a \u201cpollutant\u201d as defined in a (\u201cCGL\u201d) insurance policy such that the policy\u2019s pollution exclusion served to exclude coverage","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2017-03-23T21:32:26+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Pollution Exclusion Precluded Coverage for Claims Arising from Alleged Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, Oregon District Court Rules","datePublished":"2017-03-23T21:32:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/"},"wordCount":842,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","construction defects","insurance coverage","Oregon","Pollution Exclusion","property damage"],"articleSection":["Construction Defects","General Liability Policy","Property Damage"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/","name":"Pollution Exclusion Precluded Coverage for Claims Arising from Alleged Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, Oregon District Court Rules - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-03-23T21:32:26+00:00","description":"carbon monoxide was a \u201cpollutant\u201d as defined in a (\u201cCGL\u201d) insurance policy such that the policy\u2019s pollution exclusion served to exclude coverage","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/pollution-exclusion-precluded-coverage-claims-arising-alleged-carbon-monoxide-poisoning-oregon-district-court-rules\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3K0n","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891831","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=891831"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891831\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":891832,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891831\/revisions\/891832"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=891831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=891831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=891831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}