{"id":895475,"date":"2019-01-31T09:13:01","date_gmt":"2019-01-31T16:13:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=895475"},"modified":"2019-01-31T09:17:51","modified_gmt":"2019-01-31T16:17:51","slug":"trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"New York State Trial Court Addresses &#8220;Trigger of Coverage&#8221; for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Paul Briganti | <a href=\"https:\/\/coveragereporter.com\/new-york-state-trial-court-addresses-trigger-of-coverage-for-asbestos-claims-and-other-coverage-issues\/\">Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter<\/a> | December 12, 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On November 21, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott).&nbsp;<em>See Carrier Corp., et al. v. Travelers Indem. Co., et al.<\/em>, Index No. 2005-EG-7032 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>First, the court held that under New York\u2019s \u201cinjury in fact trigger of coverage,\u201d injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit. The court primarily relied on: (1) New York federal court decisions and the Delaware Supreme Court\u2019s decision in&nbsp;<em>In re Viking Pump, Inc.<\/em>, 148 A.3d 633 (Del. 2016) holding that injury continues from first exposure through death or the assertion of a claim; and (2) medical and scientific evidence that the plaintiffs had submitted in support of their motion. The court specifically declined to follow&nbsp;<em>Continental Cas. v. Wausau<\/em>, 60 A.D.3d 128 (1st Dep\u2019t 2008) (<em>Keasbey<\/em>), in which the New York Appellate Division found a question of fact whether injury occurs from exposure to asbestos through manifestation and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. The&nbsp;<em>Carrier&nbsp;<\/em>court stated that&nbsp;<em>Keasbey<\/em>&nbsp;was distinguishable because it \u201cinvolved operations coverage, a non-product claim, and thus the [<em>Keasbey<\/em>] Court required a more stringent proof of injury in fact than is necessary here, in a products case.\u201d&nbsp;<em>Carrier<\/em>, op. at 8. The&nbsp;<em>Carrier&nbsp;<\/em>court was also dismissive of affidavits offered by the defendant-insurer\u2019s medical experts, finding that the affidavits did not create an issue of fact.&nbsp;<em>See&nbsp;<\/em>Op. at 2-9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Second, the court found that Elliott had rights to coverage under policies issued to Carrier for liabilities that arose before Elliott was spun-off as a division of Carrier in 1981. The plaintiffs established through deposition testimony that the parties\u2019 intent was for all assets of the Elliott division, including insurance rights, to transfer to the post-spinoff Elliott entity.&nbsp;<em>See id.<\/em>&nbsp;at 9-14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Third, the court ruled that the limits of underlying primary policies were exhausted based on evidence that the primary insurer had paid indemnity in excess of its policy limits. The court also ruled that, in the absence of collusion, there was no basis to question the propriety of the primary insurer\u2019s payment or allocation of losses.&nbsp;<em>See id.<\/em>&nbsp;at 15 (citing&nbsp;<em>In re E. 51st St. Crane Collapse Litig.<\/em>, 103 A.D.3d 401 (1st Dep\u2019t 2013)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Fourth, the court concluded that, because the excess policies at issue contained non-cumulation clauses, \u201call sums\u201d allocation and vertical exhaustion applied under the New York Court of Appeals\u2019 decision in&nbsp;<em>In the Matter of Viking Pump, Inc.<\/em>, 52 N.E.3d 1144 (N.Y. 2016). The court rejected the insurer\u2019s assertion that \u201call sums\u201d allocation did not apply because the plaintiffs were seeking coverage under concurrent, and not successive, excess policies. The court explained that the insurer had not identified any claim for which the plaintiffs were seeking coverage under concurrent policies. The court further reasoned that, as the&nbsp;<em>Viking Pump&nbsp;<\/em>held, an insured\u2019s settlement with underlying insurers does not automatically render \u201call sums\u201d allocation inapplicable in the insured\u2019s dispute with a non-settled, higher-level insurer.&nbsp;<em>See id.<\/em>&nbsp;at 16-18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Fifth, the court determined that, under the non-cumulation clause, the defendant-insurer was entitled to a reduction of its limits only for amounts actually under paid on a particular claim (i.e., a pro-tanto settlement credit) under a prior excess policy having the same attachment point. The court held that the insurer had the burden of proving it is entitled to a limit reduction for a particular claim. In addition, the court found that the term \u201closs,\u201d as used in the phrase \u201closs covered hereunder\u201d in the non-cumulation clause, refers to individual claims and not the aggregate amount of loss incurred by the policyholder for all claims of a similar type.&nbsp;<em>See id.<\/em>&nbsp;at 18-21.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Sixth, the court ruled that, based on the language in the excess policies at issue, the defendant-insurer had no obligation to pay or reimburse defense costs incurred without its consent.&nbsp;<em>See id.<\/em>&nbsp;at 22-24 (citing&nbsp;<em>AstenJohnson v. Columbia Cas. Co.<\/em>, 483 F. Supp. 2d 425 (E.D. Pa. 2007),&nbsp;<em>aff\u2019d in part, rev\u2019d in part<\/em>, 562 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. Pa. 2009)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Seventh, the court declared that excess policies at issue would be reached upon a showing that amounts paid by the plaintiffs and the directly underlying insurers exceeded the excess policies\u2019 attachment points. Applying the so-called&nbsp;<em>Zeig&nbsp;<\/em>rule (which the court referred to as the \u201cfill the gap\u201d rule), the court concluded that \u201cthe law is clear in New York that when a policyholder enters into a compromise Settlement Agreement with an underlying insurer for less than its full coverage rights, an excess carrier is obligated to provide coverage so long as the policyholder absorbs the gap between the underlying insurer\u2019s payment and the attachment point of the excess policy.\u201d&nbsp;<em>Id.<\/em>&nbsp;at 26 (citing,&nbsp;<em>inter alia<\/em>,&nbsp;<em>Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding &amp; Ins. Co.<\/em>, 23 F.2d 665 (2d Cir. 1928);&nbsp;<em>Olin Corp. v. OneBeacon<\/em>, 864 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2017)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The&nbsp;<em>Carrier&nbsp;<\/em>decision is particularly notable because it purports to apply New York\u2019s \u201cinjury in fact trigger,\u201d which requires actual injury during the policy period, but effectively adopts a \u201ccontinuous trigger,\u201d which presumes that injury occurs from first exposure through manifestation of disease. The ruling, however, is not binding in other cases and is subject to appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Paul Briganti | Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter | December 12, 2018 On November 21, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott).&nbsp;See Carrier Corp., et al. v. Travelers Indem. Co.,&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">New York State Trial Court Addresses &#8220;Trigger of Coverage&#8221; for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues<\/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":[9895,34,10722],"class_list":["post-895475","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance-coverage","tag-advise-consult","tag-asbestos","tag-trigger-of-coverage","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>New York State Trial Court Addresses &quot;Trigger of Coverage&quot; for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims\" \/>\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\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New York State Trial Court Addresses &quot;Trigger of Coverage&quot; for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/\" \/>\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=\"2019-01-31T16:13:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-31T16:17:51+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\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"New York State Trial Court Addresses &#8220;Trigger of Coverage&#8221; for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-01-31T16:13:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-31T16:17:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/\"},\"wordCount\":947,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise &amp; Consult\",\"asbestos\",\"Trigger of Coverage\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance Coverage\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/\",\"name\":\"New York State Trial Court Addresses \\\"Trigger of Coverage\\\" for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-01-31T16:13:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-31T16:17:51+00:00\",\"description\":\"New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"New York State Trial Court Addresses \"Trigger of Coverage\" for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims","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\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New York State Trial Court Addresses \"Trigger of Coverage\" for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","og_description":"New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/","og_site_name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2019-01-31T16:13:01+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-31T16:17:51+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\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"New York State Trial Court Addresses &#8220;Trigger of Coverage&#8221; for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues","datePublished":"2019-01-31T16:13:01+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-31T16:17:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/"},"wordCount":947,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise &amp; Consult","asbestos","Trigger of Coverage"],"articleSection":["Insurance Coverage"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/","name":"New York State Trial Court Addresses \"Trigger of Coverage\" for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-01-31T16:13:01+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-31T16:17:51+00:00","description":"New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/trigger-of-coverage-asbestos-claims\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3KX9","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/895475","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=895475"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/895475\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":895476,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/895475\/revisions\/895476"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=895475"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=895475"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=895475"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}