{"id":897836,"date":"2020-08-13T12:07:27","date_gmt":"2020-08-13T18:07:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=897836"},"modified":"2020-08-13T12:07:29","modified_gmt":"2020-08-13T18:07:29","slug":"property-coverage-direct-physical-loss","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/","title":{"rendered":"DC Court Finds No Coverage for COVID-19 Losses Where Plaintiffs Could Not Show That Property Sustained Direct Physical Loss"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Heidi Hudson Raschke | Property Casualty Focus<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For going on five months, the United States has been dealing with the difficult impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted daily lives and sometimes devastated businesses. In looking for sources of economic recovery, businesses want to turn to their commercial property policies, but, as\u00a0this blog\u00a0has explained, these policies are unlikely to provide the coverage business owners seek because there must first be \u201cdirect physical loss of or damage<\/a>\u201d to the insured property. On Thursday, in\u00a0Rose\u2019s 1 LLC v. Erie Insurance Exchange<\/em>, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia weighed in and confirmed the insurer\u2019s position that there is no coverage for COVID-19 losses where the insured cannot demonstrate a direct physical loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs in the action own and operate a number of restaurants in the District of Columbia. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Mayor Muriel Bowser declared a state of emergency and issued a number of orders due to the \u201cimminent hazard of or actual occurrence of widespread exposure\u201d to COVID-19. The orders placed various restrictions on the operations of the plaintiffs\u2019 restaurants, which were forced to close and suffered significant revenue losses. The plaintiffs sought coverage for their losses under their insurance policies issued by Erie. When their claims were denied, they filed suit, and both sides moved for summary judgment. As the court explained, \u201c[a]t the most basic level, the parties dispute[d] whether the closure of the restaurants due to Mayor Bowser\u2019s orders constituted a \u2018direct physical loss\u2019 under the policy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs pointed to the dictionary definitions of \u201cdirect,\u201d \u201cphysical,\u201d and \u201closs\u201d to support three arguments. First, they argued that \u201cthe loss of use of their restaurant properties was \u2018direct\u2019 because the closures were the direct result of the mayor\u2019s orders without intervening action.\u201d The court noted, however, that the orders required the businesses to take certain actions. \u201cStanding alone and absent intervening actions by individuals and businesses, the orders did not effect any direct changes to the properties.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the plaintiffs claimed their losses were \u201cphysical\u201d because the COVID-19 virus is \u201cmaterial\u201d and \u201ctangible\u201d and \u201cbecause the harm they experienced was caused by the mayor\u2019s orders rather than \u2018some abstract mental phenomenon such as irrational fear causing diners to refrain from eating out.’\u201d Again, the court was unconvinced. It noted that there was no evidence that the virus was actually present at any of the insured\u2019s properties when they were forced to close. Moreover, \u201cthe mayor\u2019s orders did not have any effect on the material or tangible structure of the insured properties.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, the plaintiffs attempted to distinguish between \u201closs\u201d and \u201cdamage,\u201d arguing that they are distinct and loss incorporates \u201closs of use,\u201d which does not require physical damage. Again, the court did not agree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[U]nder a natural reading of the term \u201cdirect physical loss,\u201d the words \u201cdirect\u201d and \u201cphysical\u201d modify the word \u201closs.\u201d As such, pursuant to Plaintiffs\u2019 dictionary definitions, any \u201closs of use\u201d must be caused, without the intervention of other persons or conditions, by something pertaining to matter \u2013 in other words, a direct physical intrusion on to the insured property.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The court noted that Bowser\u2019s orders \u201cwere not such a direct physical intrusion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After rejecting the plaintiffs\u2019 plain language arguments, the court explained why none of the cases cited by the parties supported the plaintiffs\u2019 arguments. The cases cited by the plaintiffs involved the finding of direct physical loss due to ammonia and gasoline fumes, which rendered the insured properties unsatisfactory or uninhabitable. See Gregory Packaging, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.<\/em>, No. 2:12-cv-04418, 2014 WL 6675934, at *6 (D.N.J. Nov. 25, 2014) (quoting AFLAC Inc. v. Chubb & Sons, Inc.<\/em>, 581 S.E.2d 317, 319 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (finding that the release of ammonia into a factory was a direct physical loss because it constituted \u201can actual change in insured property then in a satisfactory state, occasioned by accident or other fortuitous event directly upon the property causing it to become unsatisfactory for future use or requiring that repairs be made to make it so\u201d)); W. Fire Ins. Co. v. First Presbyterian Church<\/em>, 437 P.2d 52, 55 (Colo. 1968) (finding direct physical loss when gasoline fumes entered a church and the fire department ordered its closure). The court noted that in the case involving a church\u2019s closure by the fire department due to gasoline fumes, the fire department\u2019s order \u201cstanding alone<\/em>, does not in and of itself constitute a direct physical loss.\u201d W. Fire Ins. Co.<\/em>, 437 P.2d at 55.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, all the cases cited by the defendant \u201cinvolved some compromise to the physical integrity of the insured property.\u201d See Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.<\/em>, 311 F.3d 226, 236 (3d Cir. 2002) (presence of asbestos in building was not \u201cphysical loss\u201d because building owner could not show real or imminent \u201ccontamination of the property such that its function is nearly eliminated or destroyed, or the structure is made useless or uninhabitable\u201d); Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hardinger<\/em>, 131 F. App\u2019x 823, 826-27 (3d Cir. 2005) (presence of bacterium on property could constitute \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d if it \u201creduced the use of the property to a substantial degree\u201d); TRAVCO Ins. Co. v. Ward<\/em>, 715 F. Supp. 2d 699, 709-10 (E.D. Va. 2010), aff\u2019d<\/em>, 504 F. App\u2019x 251 (4th Cir. 2013) (home rendered uninhabitable by toxic gases released by defective drywall constituted \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d); Mellin v. N. Sec. Ins. Co.<\/em>, 115 A.3d 799, 805 (N.H. 2015) (cat urine odor from neighboring apartment may constitute \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d if plaintiff could show \u201cdistinct and demonstrable alteration to the unit\u201d); Murray v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.<\/em>, 509 S.E.2d 1, 16-17 (W. Va. 1998) (landslide rendering homes uninhabitable, due to either actual physical damage or palpable future risk of physical damage from a follow-on landslide, was a \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d); Sentinel Mgmt. Co. v. N.H. Ins. Co.<\/em>, 563 N.W.2d 296, 300-01 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (asbestos contamination in building was \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d when \u201cproperty rendered useless\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court further noted that courts reject coverage when a closure is not due to direct physical harm to the insured premises. See Roundabout Theatre Co. v. Cont\u2019l Cas. Co.<\/em>, 302 A.D.2d 1, 7 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002) (finding that the \u201cplain meaning of the words \u2018direct\u2019 and \u2018physical’\u201d narrowed the scope of coverage and mandated \u201cthe conclusion that losses resulting from off-site property damage do not constitute covered perils under the policy\u201d); Newman Myers Kreines Gross Harris, P.C. v. Great N. Ins. Co.<\/em>, 17 F. Supp. 3d 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (holding that a law firm did not suffer a \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d when an electric utility preemptively shut off power in advance of Hurricane Sandy).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last, the court cited to Brothers, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.<\/em>, 268 A.2d 611 (D.C. 1970), in which a restaurant sought to recover lost business income due to a curfew imposed by the D.C. government as a result of the riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. In that case, the court of appeals interpreted \u201cdirect loss\u201d to mean \u201ca loss proximately resulting from physical damage to the property or contents.\u201d There, the restaurant could not recover because its losses due to the curfew were, at best, an indirect result of the riots, not the result of physical damage. While the D.C. court agreed that the case was not directly on point, it \u201cdoes support the proposition that, in the context of property insurance, the term \u2018direct loss\u2019 implies some form of direct physical change to the insured property.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In sum, the court determined that neither the dictionary definitions of direct physical loss nor the weight of case law supported the plaintiffs\u2019 claims for coverage. In rejecting the last of the plaintiffs\u2019 arguments, the court noted that \u201ceven if \u2018loss of use\u2019 was covered, Plaintiffs would still have to show that the loss of use was a \u2018direct physical loss.’\u201d In addition, the lack of a virus exclusion did not impact the court\u2019s decision. \u201c[E]ven in the absence of such an exclusion, Plaintiffs would still be required to show a \u2018direct physical loss.’\u201d Because the plaintiffs could show no such direct physical loss, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This case supports a plain reading of the policy language, which requires direct physical loss or damage to trigger coverage, and follows\u00a0two early rulings\u00a0in favor of insurers on COVID-19 issues by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In addition, a Michigan court\u00a0recently held\u00a0that a virus exclusion barred coverage under the policy\u2019s business interruption provisions for the plaintiff-restaurant\u2019s financial losses caused by \u201cthe loss of access or use of the [plaintiff\u2019s] premise[s] due to executive orders and the COVID-19 virus crisis\u201d (among other reasons for there being no coverage).\u00a0SeeGavrilides Mgmt. Co. v. Mich. Ins. Co<\/em>., No. 20-258-CB-C30 (Mich. Cir. Ct. July 1, 2020). In making its ruling for the insurer, the Michigan court noted that the policy required direct physical loss of property or direct physical damage to property. The Michigan court, like the D.C. court, found that \u201cthe plaintiff just can\u2019t avoid the requirement that there has to be something that physically alters the integrity of the property. There has to be some tangible, i.e., physical damage to the property.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Heidi Hudson Raschke | Property Casualty Focus For going on five months, the United States has been dealing with the difficult impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted daily lives and sometimes devastated businesses. In looking for sources of economic recovery, businesses want to turn to their commercial property policies, but, as\u00a0this blog\u00a0has explained,… Continue reading DC Court Finds No Coverage for COVID-19 Losses Where Plaintiffs Could Not Show That Property Sustained Direct Physical Loss<\/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":[9914,9721],"tags":[9895,11113,10593,260],"class_list":["post-897836","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance-coverage","category-property-damage","tag-advise-consult","tag-covid-19","tag-insurance-coverage-disputes","tag-property-damage-coverage","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nDC Court Finds No Coverage for COVID-19 Losses Where Plaintiffs Could Not Show That Property Sustained Direct Physical Loss - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"commercial property policies are unlikely to provide the coverage business owners seek because there must first be \u201cdirect physical loss of or damage\u201d\" \/>\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\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"DC Court Finds No Coverage for COVID-19 Losses Where Plaintiffs Could Not Show That Property Sustained Direct Physical Loss - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"commercial property policies are unlikely to provide the coverage business owners seek because there must first be \u201cdirect physical loss of or damage\u201d\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/\" \/>\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=\"2020-08-13T18:07:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-08-13T18:07:29+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"DC Court Finds No Coverage for COVID-19 Losses Where Plaintiffs Could Not Show That Property Sustained Direct Physical Loss\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-08-13T18:07:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-08-13T18:07:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/\"},\"wordCount\":1602,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"Covid-19\",\"Insurance Coverage Disputes\",\"Property Damage Coverage\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance Coverage\",\"Property Damage\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/\",\"name\":\"DC Court Finds No Coverage for COVID-19 Losses Where Plaintiffs Could Not Show That Property Sustained Direct Physical Loss - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-08-13T18:07:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-08-13T18:07:29+00:00\",\"description\":\"commercial property policies are unlikely to provide the coverage business owners seek because there must first be \u201cdirect physical loss of or damage\u201d\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"DC Court Finds No Coverage for COVID-19 Losses Where Plaintiffs Could Not Show That Property Sustained Direct Physical Loss - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"commercial property policies are unlikely to provide the coverage business owners seek because there must first be \u201cdirect physical loss of or damage\u201d","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\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"DC Court Finds No Coverage for COVID-19 Losses Where Plaintiffs Could Not Show That Property Sustained Direct Physical Loss - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"commercial property policies are unlikely to provide the coverage business owners seek because there must first be \u201cdirect physical loss of or damage\u201d","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2020-08-13T18:07:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-08-13T18:07:29+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"DC Court Finds No Coverage for COVID-19 Losses Where Plaintiffs Could Not Show That Property Sustained Direct Physical Loss","datePublished":"2020-08-13T18:07:27+00:00","dateModified":"2020-08-13T18:07:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/"},"wordCount":1602,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","Covid-19","Insurance Coverage Disputes","Property Damage Coverage"],"articleSection":["Insurance Coverage","Property Damage"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/","name":"DC Court Finds No Coverage for COVID-19 Losses Where Plaintiffs Could Not Show That Property Sustained Direct Physical Loss - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-08-13T18:07:27+00:00","dateModified":"2020-08-13T18:07:29+00:00","description":"commercial property policies are unlikely to provide the coverage business owners seek because there must first be \u201cdirect physical loss of or damage\u201d","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/property-coverage-direct-physical-loss\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3Lze","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897836","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=897836"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897836\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":897837,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897836\/revisions\/897837"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=897836"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=897836"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=897836"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}