{"id":892904,"date":"2017-09-13T09:32:08","date_gmt":"2017-09-13T15:32:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=892904"},"modified":"2017-09-13T09:32:08","modified_gmt":"2017-09-13T15:32:08","slug":"california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/","title":{"rendered":"California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase \u201cOngoing Operations\u201d In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Gary Barrera | <a href=\"https:\/\/calconstructionlawblog.com\/2017\/09\/11\/california-court-of-appeal-inserting-the-phrase-ongoing-operations-in-an-additional-endorsement-is-not-enough-to-preclude-coverage-for-completed-operations\/\" target=\"_blank\">California Construction Law Blog<\/a> | September 11, 2017<\/p>\n<p>In a victory for additional insureds, a California appeals court held, in\u00a0<em>Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co.<\/em>, Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D070478 (filed 8\/30\/17), that an insurer\u2019s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase \u201congoing operations\u201d in an additional insured endorsement, was improper. Additionally, an insurer wishing to limit coverage under an additional insured endorsement to ongoing operations must do so via clear and explicit language.<\/p>\n<h2><em>Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co.<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>In the\u00a0<em>Pulte<\/em>\u00a0case, Pulte Home Corp. was the general contractor and developer for two residential housing projects beginning in 2003 and sold in 2005 and 2006.\u00a0 During construction, Pulte entered into subcontracts that obligated the subcontractors to name Pulte as an additional insured on their policies for completed operations.\u00a0 One of the insurers, American Safety, issued three types of additional insured endorsements with substantially similar language.\u00a0 The first endorsement provided coverage for \u201cliability arising out of \u2018your [the named insured subcontractor\u2019s] work\u2019 which is ongoing and which is performed by the [named insured subcontractor] for [Pulte]\u201d on or after the endorsement\u2019s effective date.\u00a0 The second endorsement provided coverage for \u201cliability arising out of \u2018your [the named insured subcontractor\u2019s] work\u2019 and only as respects ongoing operations performed by the [named insured subcontractor] for [Pulte]\u201d on or after the endorsement\u2019s effective date.\u00a0 The third endorsement provided coverage for \u201cliability arising out of \u2018your [the named insured subcontractor\u2019s] work\u2019\u201d performed at the project designated in the endorsement and only for \u201congoing operations performed by the [named insured subcontractor]\u201d on or after the endorsement\u2019s effective date.<\/p>\n<p>In 2011 and 2013, two construction defect lawsuits were filed against Pulte by homeowners on each project. Pulte tendered its defense of the lawsuits to American Safety.\u00a0 American Safety denied Pulte\u2019s tenders, in part, on the grounds that coverage under the additional insured endorsements was limited to ongoing operations, and that the lawsuits alleged liability arising out of completed operations.\u00a0 Pulte sued American Safety for bad faith.\u00a0 The trial court ruled that American Safety\u2019s denial of Pulte\u2019s tenders was improper and that the additional insured endorsements were ambiguous because they did not effectively exclude coverage for completed operations.<\/p>\n<h2>The Appeal<\/h2>\n<p>On appeal, American Safety argued that the additional insured endorsements excluded coverage for completed operations because the inclusion of the phrase \u201congoing operations\u201d after the phrase \u201cyour work\u201d was a limitation on \u201cyour work\u201d and eliminated completed operations coverage. American Safety also argued that the endorsements limited coverage to the time frame of the subcontractors\u2019 ongoing operations, and since the homes were sold as completed units, ongoing operations had already concluded.<\/p>\n<p>The Court of Appeal rejected American Safety\u2019s arguments. First, the court held that American Safety\u2019s contention that there were no allegations of ongoing operations incorrectly focused on when the homeowners sustained financial damage through their purchase of the defective homes, and not when the homes became physically damaged.\u00a0 The court opined that the property damage could have occurred while the subcontractor\u2019s operations were ongoing but after the homes had been sold, and since the property damage became evident after the work was completed, American Safety was placed on sufficient notice that some of the subcontractors\u2019 work could have been ongoing and\/or completed during its policy periods, since the homes were built in phases.<\/p>\n<p>Next, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the trial court\u2019s ruling that the additional insured endorsements were ambiguous because they combined coverage for ongoing and completed operations in a single clause, and failed to expressly limit coverage to the time of the subcontractors\u2019 ongoing operations. The court held that the endorsements\u2019 language allowing coverage for \u201cliability arising out of \u2018your [the named insured subcontractor\u2019s] work\u2019\u201d could reasonably be read as a grant of coverage for liability arising out of the named insured\u2019s completed operations.\u00a0 The court ruled that the mere linking of the phrase \u201congoing operations\u201d to the \u201cliability arising out of \u2018your work\u2019\u201d clause did not explicitly restrict coverage to ongoing operations.\u00a0 The court explained that if the \u201congoing operations\u201d language was intended by American Safety to preclude coverage for completed operations, the endorsements had to expressly state that coverage was limited to claims arising out of work performed during the policy period.<\/p>\n<p>The Court of Appeal also noted the subcontracts\u2019 requirement that Pulte be named as an additional insured for completed operations. The court observed that at the time American Safety issued the additional insured endorsements and at the time of Pulte\u2019s tenders, it was aware that the subcontracts obligated the subcontractors to name Pulte as an additional insured for completed operations.\u00a0 The court ruled that based on American Safety\u2019s knowledge of this information, it should have taken into account Pulte\u2019s reasonable expectations of coverage in interpreting its policy, but it did not do so, thereby failing to give equal consideration to its interests and its insureds\u2019 interests.<\/p>\n<h2>Conclusion<\/h2>\n<p>The\u00a0<em>Pulte<\/em>\u00a0decision should provide developers and general contractors with powerful ammunition against insurers\u2019 attempts to deny completed operations coverage merely because the endorsements contain the phrase \u201congoing operations,\u201d without taking into account whether the wording of the endorsement is ambiguous.\u00a0<em>Pulte<\/em>\u00a0makes it clear that insurers intending to limit coverage to ongoing operations must ensure that their endorsements contain clear and unambiguous language to that effect.\u00a0<em>Pulte<\/em>\u00a0is also noteworthy from the perspective of a developer and general contractor because if a subcontractor\u2019s insurer has knowledge of the subcontractor\u2019s contractual obligation to add the developer or general contractor to its policies of insurance as an additional insured for completed operations, it obligates the insurer to consider the developer or general contractor\u2019s reasonable expectations of coverage when evaluating an additional insured tender.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gary Barrera | California Construction Law Blog | September 11, 2017 In a victory for additional insureds, a California appeals court held, in\u00a0Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D070478 (filed 8\/30\/17), that an insurer\u2019s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase \u201congoing&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase \u201cOngoing Operations\u201d In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations<\/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":[9914],"tags":[382,9895,88,10262],"class_list":["post-892904","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance-coverage","tag-additional-insured","tag-advise-consult","tag-california","tag-ongoing-operations","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase \u201cOngoing Operations\u201d In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"an insurer\u2019s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase \u201congoing operations\u201d in an additional insured endorsement\" \/>\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\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase \u201cOngoing Operations\u201d In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"an insurer\u2019s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase \u201congoing operations\u201d in an additional insured endorsement\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-09-13T15:32:08+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\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase \u201cOngoing Operations\u201d In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-09-13T15:32:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/\"},\"wordCount\":991,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Additional Insured\",\"Advise &amp; Consult\",\"california\",\"Ongoing Operations\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance Coverage\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/\",\"name\":\"California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase \u201cOngoing Operations\u201d In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-09-13T15:32:08+00:00\",\"description\":\"an insurer\u2019s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase \u201congoing operations\u201d in an additional insured endorsement\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise &amp; 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":"California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase \u201cOngoing Operations\u201d In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"an insurer\u2019s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase \u201congoing operations\u201d in an additional insured endorsement","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\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase \u201cOngoing Operations\u201d In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","og_description":"an insurer\u2019s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase \u201congoing operations\u201d in an additional insured endorsement","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/","og_site_name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2017-09-13T15:32:08+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\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase \u201cOngoing Operations\u201d In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations","datePublished":"2017-09-13T15:32:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/"},"wordCount":991,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Additional Insured","Advise &amp; Consult","california","Ongoing Operations"],"articleSection":["Insurance Coverage"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/","name":"California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase \u201cOngoing Operations\u201d In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-09-13T15:32:08+00:00","description":"an insurer\u2019s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase \u201congoing operations\u201d in an additional insured endorsement","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-court-appeal-inserting-phrase-ongoing-operations-additional-endorsement-not-enough-preclude-coverage-completed-operations\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise &amp; 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\/p2ztG6-3KhG","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/892904","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=892904"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/892904\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":892905,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/892904\/revisions\/892905"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=892904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=892904"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=892904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}