{"id":896934,"date":"2020-01-14T10:48:57","date_gmt":"2020-01-14T17:48:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=896934"},"modified":"2020-01-14T10:49:01","modified_gmt":"2020-01-14T17:49:01","slug":"court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/","title":{"rendered":"Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Policyholder\u2019s Notice-Prejudice and Continuity of Coverage Arguments"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Andrew Daechsel | <a href=\"https:\/\/propertycasualtyfocus.com\/ohio-appellate-court-rejects-policyholders-notice-prejudice-and-continuity-of-coverage-arguments\/\">Property Casualty Focus<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Claims-made liability insurance policies typically require the policyholder to notify the insurer of a claim within a set amount of time \u2014 typically during the policy period, or within a specific period of time after the end of the policy period \u2014 to obtain coverage. When policyholders fail to do so, they often argue that the <a 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\/\">\u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d<\/a> should apply, such that the insurer can only deny coverage if it was prejudiced by the policyholder\u2019s untimely notice. Additionally, policyholders sometimes argue that their failure to provide timely notice should be excused if they renewed the subject policy and thus had an expectation of continuous coverage. In\u00a0<em>ISCO Industries, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Co.<\/em>, Ohio\u2019s First District Court of Appeals, applying Ohio law, rejected both of these arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Great American\u2019s Claims-Made Liability Policy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The case involved a claims-made liability insurance policy that Great American issued to ISCO for the policy period from March 19, 2013, to March 19, 2014. The policy provided defense and indemnity coverage for certain \u201cclaims,\u201d including lawsuits, first made against ISCO during the policy period and reported to Great American \u201cas soon as practicable from the date the General Counsel, Risk Manager, or person with equivalent responsibility has knowledge of the Claim, and in no event later than ninety (90) days after the end of the Policy Period.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Underlying Lawsuit Filed Against ISCO<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In February 2014, during the policy period, a third-party company filed a lawsuit against ISCO, but ISCO did not provide notice of the lawsuit to Great American until August 2015, well after the notice deadline set forth in the policy. Great American subsequently denied coverage for the lawsuit due to ISCO\u2019s failure to provide timely notice. Following this denial of coverage, ISCO settled the underlying lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">ISCO\u2019s Coverage Lawsuit Against Great American Is Dismissed With Prejudice<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>After settling the underlying lawsuit, ISCO sued Great American for breach of contract, alleging that Great American had breached its duty to defend ISCO against the underlying lawsuit and to indemnify ISCO for the amount it paid to settle the underlying lawsuit. Great American moved to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, arguing that it was not obligated to provide coverage because ISCO failed to provide notice of the underlying lawsuit within 90 days after the end of the policy period, as required by the policy. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal With Prejudice<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>ISCO appealed the trial court\u2019s dismissal with prejudice, and the appellate court affirmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On appeal, ISCO argued that the dismissal was improper because the \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d applied to the policy such that Great American could only deny coverage based on late notice if it was prejudice by the late notice. The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that the notice-prejudice rule was inapplicable to Great American\u2019s policy. The appellate court acknowledged that, in&nbsp;<em>Ferrando v. Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance Co.<\/em>, 781 N.E.2d 927 (Ohio 2002), the Ohio Supreme Court held that the notice-prejudice rule applied to an uninsured motorist policy that required the insured to provide \u201cprompt notice\u201d of claims. However, the appellate court found that&nbsp;<em>Ferrando<\/em>&nbsp;was inapplicable because Great American\u2019s policy was a directors and officers liability policy (not an uninsured motorist policy like in&nbsp;<em>Ferrando<\/em>) and Great American\u2019s policy required the insured to provide notice of claims by a specific deadline, within 90 days after the policy period (not just \u201cprompt notice\u201d like the policy in&nbsp;<em>Ferrando<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>ISCO also argued that the trial court\u2019s dismissal was improper because ISCO had renewed the policy and thus had an expectation of continuous and seamless coverage, so long as it provided notice of the underlying lawsuit within a reasonable time. The appellate court rejected this argument because the plain language of the policy required ISCO to report a claim within 90 days after the end of the policy period, not just within a reasonable time. The appellate court noted, \u201cIt is well-established in Ohio, and indeed universally, that contracts, including insurance policies, \u2018are to be interpreted so as to carry out the intent of the parties, as that intent is evidenced by the contractual language.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Andrew Daechsel | Property Casualty Focus Claims-made liability insurance policies typically require the policyholder to notify the insurer of a claim within a set amount of time \u2014 typically during the policy period, or within a specific period of time after the end of the policy period \u2014 to obtain coverage. When policyholders fail to&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Policyholder\u2019s Notice-Prejudice and Continuity of Coverage Arguments<\/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":[9895,23,10951,11050],"class_list":["post-896934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance-coverage","tag-advise-consult","tag-insurance-coverage","tag-notice-prejudice-rule","tag-timely-notice","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>Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Policyholder\u2019s Notice-Prejudice and Continuity of Coverage Arguments - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"When policyholders fail to notify the insurer of a claim within a set period of time, they often argue that the \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d should apply\" \/>\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\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Policyholder\u2019s Notice-Prejudice and Continuity of Coverage Arguments - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"When policyholders fail to notify the insurer of a claim within a set period of time, they often argue that the \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d should apply\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/\" \/>\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=\"2020-01-14T17:48:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-01-14T17:49:01+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=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Policyholder\u2019s Notice-Prejudice and Continuity of Coverage Arguments\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-01-14T17:48:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-01-14T17:49:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/\"},\"wordCount\":709,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise &amp; Consult\",\"insurance coverage\",\"Notice-Prejudice Rule\",\"Timely Notice\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance Coverage\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/\",\"name\":\"Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Policyholder\u2019s Notice-Prejudice and Continuity of Coverage Arguments - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-01-14T17:48:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-01-14T17:49:01+00:00\",\"description\":\"When policyholders fail to notify the insurer of a claim within a set period of time, they often argue that the \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d should apply\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Policyholder\u2019s Notice-Prejudice and Continuity of Coverage Arguments - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"When policyholders fail to notify the insurer of a claim within a set period of time, they often argue that the \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d should apply","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\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Policyholder\u2019s Notice-Prejudice and Continuity of Coverage Arguments - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","og_description":"When policyholders fail to notify the insurer of a claim within a set period of time, they often argue that the \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d should apply","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/","og_site_name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2020-01-14T17:48:57+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-01-14T17:49:01+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Policyholder\u2019s Notice-Prejudice and Continuity of Coverage Arguments","datePublished":"2020-01-14T17:48:57+00:00","dateModified":"2020-01-14T17:49:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/"},"wordCount":709,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise &amp; Consult","insurance coverage","Notice-Prejudice Rule","Timely Notice"],"articleSection":["Insurance Coverage"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/","name":"Ohio Appellate Court Rejects Policyholder\u2019s Notice-Prejudice and Continuity of Coverage Arguments - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-01-14T17:48:57+00:00","dateModified":"2020-01-14T17:49:01+00:00","description":"When policyholders fail to notify the insurer of a claim within a set period of time, they often argue that the \u201cnotice-prejudice rule\u201d should apply","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/court-rejects-policyholder-notice-prejudice-continuity-of-coverage-arguements\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3LkG","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/896934","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=896934"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/896934\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":896935,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/896934\/revisions\/896935"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=896934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=896934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=896934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}