{"id":896457,"date":"2019-09-18T10:51:32","date_gmt":"2019-09-18T16:51:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=896457"},"modified":"2019-09-18T10:51:40","modified_gmt":"2019-09-18T16:51:40","slug":"notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/","title":{"rendered":"California Supreme Court holds that \u201cNotice-Prejudice Rule\u201d Is a \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California for the Purpose of Choice of Law Determination"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Susan White | <a href=\"https:\/\/www.buchalter.com\/publication\/california-supreme-court-holds-that-notice-prejudice-rule-is-a-fundamental-public-policy-of-california-for-the-purpose-of-choice-of-law-determination\/\">Buchalter<\/a> | September 12, 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On August 29, 2019, the California Supreme Court issued a decision on an important issue to many insurance coverage disputes. In&nbsp;<em>Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co<\/em>., the Court held that California\u2019s \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d\u2014which requires an insurer to prove it was substantially prejudiced by an insured\u2019s untimely notice of a claim in order to deny coverage on that basis\u2014is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d of California for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis. The Court also ruled that California\u2019s notice-prejudice rule applies to consent provisions contained in \u201cfirst party\u201d policies, which, among other things, cover an insured\u2019s costs arising from damage to its own property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In&nbsp;<em>Pitzer<\/em>, the insurance policy contained a choice-of-law provision stating that New York law applied.&nbsp; The Court noted that under New York law, \u201cpolicies issued and delivered outside New York [as is the case here] are subject to a strict no-prejudice rule under New York common law, which denies coverage where timely notice is not provided.\u201d Pitzer argued that this rule should not apply, but instead, a choice-of-law analysis should be invoked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Ninth Circuit certified two questions to the California Supreme Court in Pitzer\u2019s dispute with Indian Harbor: (1) Is California\u2019s common law notice-prejudice rule a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis? (2) If so, does the notice-prejudice rule apply to the consent provision of the insurance policy in the&nbsp;<em>Pitzer<\/em>&nbsp;case?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court analyzed applicable choice-of-law principles, which provide that when a choice-of-law provision is stated in an insurance policy, the parties\u2019 choice of law generally governs unless (1) it conflicts with a state\u2019s fundamental public policy, and (2) that state has a materially greater interest in the determination of the issue than the contractually chosen state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court then agreed with Pitzer\u2019s argument that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis because, among other reasons, it protects the state\u2019s insureds from \u201ctechnical forfeitures\u201d of insurance coverage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThe insurer establishes actual and substantial prejudice by proving more than delayed or late notice,\u201d Associate Justice Ming W. Chin wrote for the Court. &nbsp;\u201cIt must show \u2018a substantial likelihood that, with timely notice, and notwithstanding a denial of coverage or reservation of rights, it would have settled the claim for less or taken steps that would have reduced or eliminated the insured\u2019s liability.&#8217;\u201d&nbsp; Justice Chin further noted, \u201cIn the context of third party coverage, for example, the insurer must show that timely notice would have enabled it to achieve a better result in the underlying third party action.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Because the Court was limited to answering the Ninth\u2019s Circuit\u2019s certified question, it left it to that court to decide whether California has a materially greater interest than New York in determining the coverage issue, such that the policy\u2019s choice of law would be unenforceable because it is contrary to California\u2019s fundamental public policy.&nbsp; However, this decision has now eliminated an insurer\u2019s ability to simply designate another state\u2019s law in a policy issued to a California-based insured as a way to avoid California\u2019s notice-prejudice rule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court then moved on to the second question\u2014whether the notice-prejudice rule also applies to a \u201cconsent\u201d provision in Pitzer\u2019s policy, which required the college to obtain Indian Harbor\u2019s permission before incurring any remediation expenses. &nbsp;In addition to its late notice defense, Indian Harbor also argued that Pitzer failed to obtain the insurer\u2019s consent before incurring such remediation expenses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court held, as a matter of first impression, that the notice-prejudice rule is equally applicable to consent provisions in first-party policies. &nbsp;Justice Chin noted that \u201cthe notice-prejudice rule makes good sense for consent provisions in first party policies just as it does for notice provisions.\u201d&nbsp; Thus, a first-party insurer must prove it suffered prejudice in order to deny coverage due to an insured\u2019s breach of a consent provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the Court did not apply the notice-prejudice rule to consent clauses in third-party liability policies, which protect an insured against claims for property damage or bodily injury brought by a third party.&nbsp; It noted that third-party policies present somewhat different issues where the insurer\u2019s right to control the defense and settlement of claims is paramount.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Why this matters:&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Pitzer<\/em>&nbsp;will have a huge impact on insurance cases, as insurers can no longer argue that choice-of-law provisions in their policies automatically preclude the applicability of California\u2019s notice-prejudice rule to California-based insureds.&nbsp; Moreover, insurers cannot continue to argue that the consent provisions in their first-party policies bar coverage unless they can prove that they were actually and substantially prejudiced by an insured\u2019s failure to obtain consent.&nbsp; Thus, this decision potentially can breathe new life into cases as California public policy is clear that forfeitures of coverage are to be avoided.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Susan White | Buchalter | September 12, 2019 On August 29, 2019, the California Supreme Court issued a decision on an important issue to many insurance coverage disputes. In&nbsp;Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., the Court held that California\u2019s \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d\u2014which requires an insurer to prove it was substantially prejudiced by an insured\u2019s untimely&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">California Supreme Court holds that \u201cNotice-Prejudice Rule\u201d Is a \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California for the Purpose of Choice of Law Determination<\/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":[10721],"tags":[9895,88,10936,10951],"class_list":["post-896457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance","tag-advise-consult","tag-california","tag-fundamental-public-policy","tag-notice-prejudice-rule","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 Supreme Court holds that \u201cNotice-Prejudice Rule\u201d Is a \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California for the Purpose of Choice of Law Determination - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Court held that California\u2019s \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d of California for the purpose 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\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/\" \/>\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 that \u201cNotice-Prejudice Rule\u201d Is a \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California for the Purpose of Choice of Law Determination - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Court held that California\u2019s \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d of California for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/\" \/>\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=\"2019-09-18T16:51:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-09-18T16:51:40+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\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"California Supreme Court holds that \u201cNotice-Prejudice Rule\u201d Is a \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California for the Purpose of Choice of Law Determination\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-09-18T16:51:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-09-18T16:51:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/\"},\"wordCount\":848,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise &amp; Consult\",\"california\",\"Fundamental Public Policy\",\"Notice-Prejudice Rule\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/\",\"name\":\"California Supreme Court holds that \u201cNotice-Prejudice Rule\u201d Is a \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California for the Purpose of Choice of Law Determination - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-09-18T16:51:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-09-18T16:51:40+00:00\",\"description\":\"Court held that California\u2019s \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d of California for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/\"]}]},{\"@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 Supreme Court holds that \u201cNotice-Prejudice Rule\u201d Is a \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California for the Purpose of Choice of Law Determination - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"Court held that California\u2019s \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d of California for the purpose 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\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"California Supreme Court holds that \u201cNotice-Prejudice Rule\u201d Is a \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California for the Purpose of Choice of Law Determination - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","og_description":"Court held that California\u2019s \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d of California for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/","og_site_name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2019-09-18T16:51:32+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-09-18T16:51:40+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\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"California Supreme Court holds that \u201cNotice-Prejudice Rule\u201d Is a \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California for the Purpose of Choice of Law Determination","datePublished":"2019-09-18T16:51:32+00:00","dateModified":"2019-09-18T16:51:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/"},"wordCount":848,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise &amp; Consult","california","Fundamental Public Policy","Notice-Prejudice Rule"],"articleSection":["Insurance"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/","name":"California Supreme Court holds that \u201cNotice-Prejudice Rule\u201d Is a \u201cFundamental Public Policy\u201d of California for the Purpose of Choice of Law Determination - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-09-18T16:51:32+00:00","dateModified":"2019-09-18T16:51:40+00:00","description":"Court held that California\u2019s \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d is a \u201cfundamental public policy\u201d of California for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/notice-prejudice-rule-fundamental-public-policy-california\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3LcZ","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/896457","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=896457"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/896457\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":896458,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/896457\/revisions\/896458"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=896457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=896457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=896457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}