{"id":896421,"date":"2019-09-11T09:54:34","date_gmt":"2019-09-11T15:54:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=896421"},"modified":"2019-09-11T09:54:37","modified_gmt":"2019-09-11T15:54:37","slug":"california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/","title":{"rendered":"California Supreme Court Holds \u201cNotice-Prejudice\u201d Rule is \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Timothy Carroll and Anthony Miscioscia | White and Williams<\/a> | September 3, 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On August 29, 2019, in\u00a0Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company<\/em>, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law \u201cnotice-prejudice\u201d rule is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in\u00a0Pitzer<\/em>\u00a0had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law \u2013 which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York \u2013 that provision can be overridden by California\u2019s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in\u00a0Pitzer<\/em>\u00a0also held that the notice-prejudice rule \u201cgenerally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,\u201d but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Pitzer<\/em> case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer \u201cdenied coverage based on Pitzer\u2019s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer\u2019s] consent before commencing the remediation process.\u201d The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until \u201cthree months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.\u201d In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment \u201cclaiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy\u2019s notice and consent provisions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The insurance policy in Pitzer<\/em> had three relevant provisions: (1) a notice provision requiring Pitzer to provide \u201cnotice of any pollution condition\u201d with a \u201cwritten report as soon as practicable;\u201d (2) a consent provision requiring Pitzer to obtain the insurer\u2019s written consent \u201cbefore incurring expenses, making payments, assuming obligations, and\/or commencing remediation due to a pollution condition;\u201d and (3) a choice of law provision stating that New York law governed all matters arising under the Policy. Based on the choice of law provision, the federal district court in Pitzer<\/em> held that New York law applied to the policy. Under New York law, a policy delivered in New York is subject to the notice-prejudice rule; however, a policy delivered outside of New York was subject to a \u201cstrict no-prejudice rule\u201d under New York common law, \u201cwhich denies coverage where timely notice is not provided.\u201d Since the policy in Pitzer<\/em> was delivered in California, the insurer did not need to prove prejudice from the College\u2019s late notice of its pollution claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The district court in Pitzer<\/em> held that the insurer was entitled to summary judgment because Pitzer College\u2019s notice was not timely and the insurer did not need to show prejudice from that late notice. \u201c[A]lthough a state\u2019s fundamental policy can override a choice of law provision,\u201d the district court observed, Pitzer \u201cfailed to establish that California\u2019s notice-prejudice rule is such a policy.\u201d Had it done so, Pitzer may have been able to avoid dismissal of its coverage claim due to its late notice of the pollution discovery and remediation work. Thus, Pitzer appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of whether the notice-prejudice rule was a fundamental public policy of California. The Ninth Circuit certified the question to the California Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The California Supreme Court in Pitzer<\/em> held that the notice-prejudice rule was a fundamental public policy of California for several reasons, including that the rule \u201cprotects insureds against inequitable results that are generated by insurers\u2019 superior bargaining power.\u201d The notice-prejudice rule, the Supreme Court added, \u201cis based on the rationale that the essential part of the contract is insurance coverage, not the procedure for determining liability, and that the notice requirement serves to protect insurers from prejudice, . . . not . . . to shield them from their contractual obligations through \u2018a technical escape-hatch.\u2019\u201d (internal citations and quotations omitted). The Supreme Court left it for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine, based on its holding that the notice-prejudice rule is California\u2019s public policy, \u201cwhether California has a materially greater interest than New York in determining the coverage issue, such that the contract\u2019s choice of law would be unenforceable because it is contrary to our fundamental public policy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Building on that holding, the Supreme Court also concluded that, with respect to the policy\u2019s consent provision, \u201cfailure to obtain consent in the first party context is not inherently prejudicial\u201d to insurers, and \u201cthe usual logic of the notice-prejudice rule should control. . . .\u201d The Supreme Court found \u201cno reason to believe imposing this rule on first party insurers will prove so unmanageable for those suffering actual prejudice to justify a contrary conclusion.\u201d Thus, the court held, \u201cCalifornia\u2019s notice-prejudice rule is applicable to a consent provision in a first party policy where coverage does not depend on the existence of a third party claim or potential claim.\u201d The California Supreme Court distinguished consent provisions in third-party liability policy context, \u201csometimes called \u2018no voluntary payment\u2019 provisions,\u201d which \u201care designed to ensure that responsible insurers that promptly accept a defense tendered by their insureds thereby gain control over the defense and settlement of the claim.\u201d In the third-party liability policy context, the Supreme Court observed, \u201cthe insurer\u2019s right to control the defense and settlement of claims is paramount,\u201d and California courts \u201cgenerally refuse[ ] to find the notice-prejudice rule applicable to consent provisions in third-party policies.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n


<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Timothy Carroll and Anthony Miscioscia | White and Williams | September 3, 2019 On August 29, 2019, in\u00a0Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law \u201cnotice-prejudice\u201d rule is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d of the State of California for purposes… Continue reading California Supreme Court Holds \u201cNotice-Prejudice\u201d Rule is \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-896421","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance-estimates","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nCalifornia Supreme Court Holds \u201cNotice-Prejudice\u201d Rule is \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"California Supreme Court held that the common law "notice-prejudice\u201d rule is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d for purposes of choice of law analysis\" \/>\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-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"California Supreme Court Holds \u201cNotice-Prejudice\u201d Rule is \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"California Supreme Court held that the common law "notice-prejudice\u201d rule is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d for purposes of choice of law analysis\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/\" \/>\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=\"2019-09-11T15:54:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-09-11T15:54:37+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-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"California Supreme Court Holds \u201cNotice-Prejudice\u201d Rule is \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-09-11T15:54:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-09-11T15:54:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/\"},\"wordCount\":1007,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance Estimates\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/\",\"name\":\"California Supreme Court Holds \u201cNotice-Prejudice\u201d Rule is \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-09-11T15:54:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-09-11T15:54:37+00:00\",\"description\":\"California Supreme Court held that the common law \\\"notice-prejudice\u201d rule is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d for purposes of choice of law analysis\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"California Supreme Court Holds \u201cNotice-Prejudice\u201d Rule is \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"California Supreme Court held that the common law \"notice-prejudice\u201d rule is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d for purposes of choice of law analysis","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-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"California Supreme Court Holds \u201cNotice-Prejudice\u201d Rule is \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"California Supreme Court held that the common law \"notice-prejudice\u201d rule is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d for purposes of choice of law analysis","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2019-09-11T15:54:34+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-09-11T15:54:37+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-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"California Supreme Court Holds \u201cNotice-Prejudice\u201d Rule is \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies","datePublished":"2019-09-11T15:54:34+00:00","dateModified":"2019-09-11T15:54:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/"},"wordCount":1007,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Insurance Estimates"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/","name":"California Supreme Court Holds \u201cNotice-Prejudice\u201d Rule is \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-09-11T15:54:34+00:00","dateModified":"2019-09-11T15:54:37+00:00","description":"California Supreme Court held that the common law \"notice-prejudice\u201d rule is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d for purposes of choice of law analysis","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/california-supreme-court-holds-notice-prejudice-rule-is-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-may-override-choice-of-law-provisions-in-policies\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3Lcp","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/896421","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=896421"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/896421\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":896422,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/896421\/revisions\/896422"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=896421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=896421"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=896421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}