{"id":897899,"date":"2020-09-01T13:42:38","date_gmt":"2020-09-01T19:42:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=897899"},"modified":"2020-09-01T13:42:41","modified_gmt":"2020-09-01T19:42:41","slug":"anti-slapp-bad-faith","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/","title":{"rendered":"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore | <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.hbblaw.com\/fact-of-settlement-communications-in-underlying-lawsuits-is-not-ground-for-anti-slapp-motion-in-subsequent-bad-faith-lawsuit\/\" target=\"_blank\">Haight Brown and Bonesteel<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In\u00a0<em>Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co.<\/em>\u00a0(No. G057796, filed 5\/27\/20, ord. pub. 6\/18\/20), a California appeals court ruled that an insurance bad faith lawsuit alleging a variety of claim handling misconduct in defending the insured was not subject to an insurer\u2019s special Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion to strike because, while the alleged acts were generally connected to litigation, they did not include any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body and, therefore, did not constitute protected activity under California\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/indemnity-provision-survives-anti-slapp-motion\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">anti-SLAPP<\/a> statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In&nbsp;<em>Trilogy Plumbing<\/em>, the policyholder was sued in 33 different construction defect lawsuits, some of which Navigators defended, and others which were denied or had the defense withdrawn.&nbsp;The Navigators\u2019 policies were subject to a $5,000 deductible, and Trilogy alleged that Navigators breached the contracts by \u201cdemanding deductible reimbursement amounts greater than the policies\u2019 $5,000 stated deductible, and by seeking reimbursement of ordinary defense fees and expenses as if they were subject to deductible reimbursement,\u201d \u201cclaiming a right to seek reimbursement from Trilogy for defense fees and expenses Navigators paid for the benefit of third-party additional insureds,\u201d \u201cproviding conflicted defense counsel who took instructions only from Navigators without disclosing conflicts of interest,\u201d \u201cfailing to reasonably settle cases and by withdrawing [the] defense as a strategic means of trying to force Trilogy to fund its own settlements,\u201d \u201cmisrepresenting its deductible provisions,\u201d \u201crefusing to account for deductible amounts it charges and collects,\u201d and others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Based on the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, Navigators moved to strike over a dozen allegations from Trilogy\u2019s amended complaint, all basically centered on alleged conflicts of interest by the attorneys appointed to defend Trilogy in relation to the policies\u2019 deductibles, exemplified in such allegations as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cTrilogy\u2019s liability and damages exposure in the construction defect cases was generally non-existent or very, very minimal, and Trilogy was often dismissed from construction defect suits for waiver of costs or with payment of very little money.&nbsp;But Navigators directed its attorneys to avoid vigorously defending Trilogy and to try to use money Trilogy would have to reimburse to resolve claims.\u201d&nbsp;Likewise:&nbsp;\u201cNavigators breached the policies by . . . providing conflicted defense counsel who took instruction only from Navigators . . . even when their actions directly conflicted with Trilogy\u2019s instructions and Trilogy\u2019s interests.\u201d&nbsp;Also:&nbsp;\u201cNavigators used conflicted counsel to threaten Trilogy and to commit Trilogy to making payments and taking actions Trilogy did not approve,\u201d all of which and other similar allegations Navigators sought to strike from Trilogy\u2019s bad faith complaint using the anti-SLAPP statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Navigators\u2019 motion relied on subdivision (e)(2) of section 425.16, which provides that \u201cany written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law\u201d is an \u201cact in furtherance of a person\u2019s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue,\u201d and therefore protected by the statute.&nbsp;Navigators argued that the specific allegations it sought to strike \u201cinvolved settlement negotiations that are protected by section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The trial and appeals courts disagreed, citing numerous authorities to the contrary.&nbsp;The appeals court said that \u201cconduct is not automatically protected merely because it is related to pending litigation; the conduct must arise from the litigation.\u201d&nbsp;(Quoting&nbsp;<em>Optional Capital, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss, Hauer &amp; Feld LLP<\/em>&nbsp;(2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 95, 113-114.) Further, \u201cit is insufficient to assert that the acts alleged were \u2018in connection with\u2019 an official proceeding.\u2019 [] Instead, \u2018[t]here must be a connection with an issue under review in that proceeding.\u2019\u201d (Quoting&nbsp;<em>Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson<\/em>&nbsp;(2019) 6 Cal.5th 610, 620.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Although noting that \u201ccourts have adopted \u2018a fairly expansive view of what constitutes litigation related activities within the scope of section 425.16,\u2019\u201d the&nbsp;<em>Trilogy Plumbing<\/em>&nbsp;court went on stating that \u201c[t]he allegations of the amended complaint that were the object of the anti-SLAPP motion do not refer to any oral or written statements or communicative conduct by anyone, whether in relation to the lawsuits in which Trilogy had been named a defendant, or in the context of settlement discussions.&nbsp;Instead, the anti-SLAPP motion sought to strike allegations pertaining to Navigators\u2019 conduct generally in mishandling the claims process.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The&nbsp;<em>Trilogy court<\/em>&nbsp;quoted at length from&nbsp;<em>Miller v. Zurich American Ins. Co.<\/em>&nbsp;(2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 247, where the plaintiff \u201csought relief from the insurance company, and not against any counsel, \u2018based on the overarching premise that [the insurance company] did not meet its duty to defend as it failed to provide independent conflict-free counsel to represent them in defending against [a] counterclaim.\u2019\u201d&nbsp;The&nbsp;<em>Miller<\/em>&nbsp;court stated:&nbsp;\u201cDespite the insurance company\u2019s blanket contention to the contrary, not all attorney conduct in connection with litigation, or in the course of representing clients, is protected by section 425.16.&nbsp;There is a distinction between activities that form the basis for a claim and those that merely lead to the liability-creating activity or provide evidentiary support for the claim.&nbsp;Assertions that are \u2018merely incidental\u2019 or \u2018collateral\u2019 are not subject to section 425.16.&nbsp;Allegations of protected activity that merely provide context, without supporting a claim for recovery, cannot be stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute.&nbsp;While a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may be carried out by means of communications between the parties\u2019 respective counsel, the fact of counsel\u2019s communications does not transform the claim to one arising from protected activity within the meaning of section 425.16.&nbsp;The allegations of counsel\u2019s communications do not concern the substantive issue of the plaintiffs\u2019 liability as alleged in the counterclaim or any coverage matter.&nbsp;Instead, the communications concern procedural matters regarding discovery, correspondence with the insurance company\u2019s claims handlers, and payments to the plaintiffs, directly related to the insurance company\u2019s duty to defend obligations owed to the plaintiffs by appointing panel counsel to represent them in defending the counterclaim.\u201d&nbsp;(<em>Miller, supra,<\/em>&nbsp;41 Cal.App.5th at 257-258 (internal quotes and citations omitted).)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThus, what gives rise to liability is not the fact of counsel\u2019s communications, but that the insurance company allegedly denied the plaintiffs the \u2018benefit\u2019 of panel counsel\u2019s independent professional judgment in rendering legal services to them.&nbsp;Consequently, we reject the insurance company\u2019s argument that the allegations of counsel\u2019s communications give rise to its liability for an action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.&nbsp;The lawsuit concerns a breach of duty that does not depend on the insurance company\u2019s exercise of a constitutional right.&nbsp;In other words, and contrary to the insurance company\u2019s contention, the allegations of counsel\u2019s communications are only evidence that provides the context for the allegation that the insurance company unreasonably and without proper cause interfered with panel counsel\u2019s representation of the plaintiffs in defending against the counterclaim.\u201d&nbsp;(<em>Miller, supra<\/em>, 41 Cal.App.5th at 258-259 (internal quotes and citations omitted).)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And for the same reason, the&nbsp;<em>Trilogy Plumbing<\/em>&nbsp;court affirmed the denial of Navigators\u2019 anti-SLAPP motion, stating that \u201creferences to settlement and other potentially protected activity in the allegations challenged by Navigators in the anti-SLAPP motion reflect evidence that provides context for the allegation Navigators failed to perform under the terms of the policies.&nbsp;Such references do not establish that Trilogy\u2019s action arises out of any protected activity. . . . .&nbsp;Navigators thus failed to show the conduct described by the challenged allegations of the amended complaint constitute protected activity within the meaning of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore | Haight Brown and Bonesteel In\u00a0Trilogy Plumbing, Inc. v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co.\u00a0(No. G057796, filed 5\/27\/20, ord. pub. 6\/18\/20), a California appeals court ruled that an insurance bad faith lawsuit alleging a variety of claim handling misconduct in defending the insured was not subject to an insurer\u2019s special Strategic&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit<\/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":[10720],"tags":[9895,11281,245,88],"class_list":["post-897899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bad-faith-insurance-coverage","tag-advise-consult","tag-anti-slapp","tag-bad-faith-litigation","tag-california","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>Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit\" \/>\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\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/\" \/>\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=\"2020-09-01T19:42:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-09-01T19:42:41+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-09-01T19:42:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-09-01T19:42:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/\"},\"wordCount\":1331,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise &amp; Consult\",\"Anti-SLAPP\",\"Bad Faith Litigation\",\"california\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Bad Faith\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/\",\"name\":\"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-09-01T19:42:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-09-01T19:42:41+00:00\",\"description\":\"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","description":"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit","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\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","og_description":"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/","og_site_name":"Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2020-09-01T19:42:38+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-09-01T19:42:41+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit","datePublished":"2020-09-01T19:42:38+00:00","dateModified":"2020-09-01T19:42:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/"},"wordCount":1331,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise &amp; Consult","Anti-SLAPP","Bad Faith Litigation","california"],"articleSection":["Bad Faith"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/","name":"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit - Advise &amp; Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-09-01T19:42:38+00:00","dateModified":"2020-09-01T19:42:41+00:00","description":"Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/anti-slapp-bad-faith\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3LAf","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897899","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=897899"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897899\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":897900,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897899\/revisions\/897900"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=897899"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=897899"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=897899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}