{"id":898569,"date":"2021-03-17T16:13:33","date_gmt":"2021-03-17T22:13:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=898569"},"modified":"2021-03-17T16:13:37","modified_gmt":"2021-03-17T22:13:37","slug":"bad-faith-liability-failure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/","title":{"rendered":"An Insurer Is Not Subject to Strict Liability for the Failure to Accept a Reasonable Settlement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Kathryn Ashton | Clyde & Co.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In March 2021, an appellate court decision clarified what the law has always been in California; that to find an insurer liable for bad faith<\/a>, the insured (or its assignee or a judgment creditor) must plead and prove the insurer acted unreasonably or without proper cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

California\u2019s standardized jury instruction pertaining to a cause of action against an insurer for an alleged failure to accept a reasonable settlement demand within the limits of the policy, CACI 2334,[1]<\/a> states that a plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) that the claimant in the underlying action brought a lawsuit against the insured for a claim that was covered by the policy; (2) that the insurer failed to accept a reasonable settlement demand for an amount within the policy limits; and (3) that a monetary judgment was entered against the insured for a sum greater than the policy limits. While CACI 2334 includes instructions to the jury on the meaning of \u201cpolicy limits\u201d and a means for evaluating whether the settlement demand was \u201creasonable,\u201d CACI 2334 did not include, as an element of the plaintiff\u2019s burden of proof, a requirement that the plaintiff prove that in rejecting the settlement demand the insurer acted unreasonably or without proper cause. Under California law, such element is necessary to establish breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on CACI 2334, policyholder counsel often assert the position that a denial of a reasonable settlement offer, within limits, constitutes bad faith per se<\/em>, a strict liability standard. This left insurers, in some coverage actions, arguing to the court that the standardized jury instruction must be modified to require the jury to also find that, in rejecting the settlement demand, the insurer acted unreasonably or without proper cause, as required under the applicable legal precedent.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This tension between the law and the instruction is noted in the \u201cDirections for Use\u201d accompanying CACI 2334:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under this instruction, if the jury finds that the policy-limits demand was reasonable, then the insurer is automatically liable for the entire excess judgment. Language from the California Supreme Court supports this view of what might be called insurer \u201cstrict liability\u201d if the demand is reasonable. (See Johansen v. California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Insurance Bureau<\/em> (1975) 15 Cal.3d 9, 16 [123 Cal.Rptr. 288, 538 P.2d 744] [\u201c[W]henever it is likely that the judgment against the insured will exceed policy limits \u2018so that the most reasonable manner of disposing of the claim is a settlement which can be made within those limits, a consideration in good faith of the insured\u2019s interest requires the insurer to settle<\/em> the claim,\u2019\u201d italics added].)<\/p>

However, there is language in numerous cases, including several from the California Supreme Court, that would require the plaintiff to also prove that the insurer\u2019s rejection of the demand was \u201cunreasonable.\u201d [Citations omitted] Under this view, even if the policy-limits demand was reasonable, the insurer may assert that it had a legitimate reason for rejecting it. However, this option, if it exists, is not available in a denial of coverage case. (Johansen, supra<\/em>, 15 Cal.3d at pp. 15\u221216.)<\/p>

None of these cases, however, neither those seemingly creating strict liability nor those seemingly providing an opportunity for the insurer to assert that its rejection was reasonable, actually discuss, analyze, and apply this standard to reach a result. All are determined on other issues, leaving the pertinent language as arguably dicta.<\/p>

For this reason, the committee has elected not to change the elements of the instruction at this time. Hopefully, someday there will be a definitive resolution from the courts. Until then, the need for an additional element requiring the insurer\u2019s rejection of the demand to have been unreasonable is a plausible, but unsettled, requirement\u2026.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In Pinto v. Farmers Ins. Exch.<\/em>, Case No. B295742 2DCA1 (Mar. 8, 2021),[3]<\/a> Division 1 of the Second District Court of Appeal squarely addressed the issue and rejected the notion that an insurer\u2019s failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer by a claimant is unreasonable per se<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Pinto<\/em>, a demand was made upon the insurer, within the $50,000 limits, to settle a catastrophic vehicle accident involving multiple individuals. The demand afforded the insurer a short period of time to respond (8 workdays). The demand also did not specify that in exchange for the policy limits, the claimant would release all individuals potentially covered by the policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a variety of reasons, the demand was not accepted \u201cunconditionally\u201d by the insurer. The claimant, after rejecting the insurer\u2019s own policy limits offer, initiated litigation against the insureds and obtained a $10 million settlement from the insureds and an assignment of the insureds\u2019 rights against the insurer in exchange for a covenant not to execute the judgment against the insureds personally. A coverage action was then pursed against the insurer, which resulted in a special verdict in favor of the claimant. The jury was not asked on the verdict form to find, and therefore made no finding, that the insurer acted unreasonably. After rejecting the insurer\u2019s post-trial challenges, the court entered a judgment for almost $10 million against the insurer, which was then appealed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citing a litany of California Supreme Court and appellate decisions, the Court of Appeal held, in reversing the judgment, that bad faith liability against an insurer requires a finding that the insurer acted unreasonably: \u201cTo hold an insurer liable for bad faith in failing to settle a third party claim, the evidence must establish that the failure to settle was unreasonable.\u201d See<\/em> Slip Op., at 11. \u201cAn insurer\u2019s duty to accept a reasonable settlement offer is not absolute.\u201d Id<\/em>. \u201cTherefore, failing to accept a reasonable settlement offer does not necessarily constitute bad faith. \u2018[T]he crucial issue is \u2026 the basis for the insurer\u2019s decision to reject an offer of settlement.\u2019\u201d Id<\/em>. at 12, citing Walbrook Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co<\/em>., 5 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1460 (1992). \u201cA claim for bad faith based on the wrongful refusal to settle thus requires proof the insurer unreasonably failed to accept an offer.\u201d Slip Op., at 12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In examining the jury\u2019s findings on the special verdict form, the Court of Appeal held that the form was \u201cfacially insufficient to support a bad faith judgment because it included no finding that [the insurer] acted unreasonably in failing to accept [the claimant\u2019s] settlement offer.\u201d Slip Op. at 14. The court noted that the special verdict form was patterned on CACI 2334, but that such instruction did not include whether the insurer\u2019s failure to settle was unreasonable. \u201cAlthough CACI No. 2334 describes three elements necessary for bad faith liability, it lacks a crucial element: Bad faith.\u201d Slip Op. at 18. \u201cTo be liable for bad faith, an insurer must not only cause the insured\u2019s damages, it must act or fail to act without proper cause, for example by placing its own interests above those of its insured.\u201d Id<\/em>. Because that necessary element was missing, the Court of Appeal found the judgment defective, reversed it, and ordered the trial court on remand to enter a new judgment in favor of the insurer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Pinto<\/em> decision clarifies what the law has always been in California; that to find an insurer liable for bad faith, the insured (or its assignee or a judgment creditor) must plead and prove the insurer acted unreasonably or without proper cause. The case law on the issue has not imposed a strict liability standard upon an insurer for failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer within limits. While CACI 2334 appeared to indicate otherwise, the source authorities upon which the instruction is based demonstrates that bad faith requires a finding that the insurer\u2019s conduct was unreasonable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the California Supreme Court cautioned: \u201c[J]ury instructions, whether published or not, are not themselves the law, and are not authority to establish legal propositions or precedent.\u201d People v. Morales, supra<\/em>, at 48 fn. 7. In reiterating the necessity of this additional element, the Pinto court squarely stated that an insured must prove that the insurer\u2019s conduct concerning the settlement demand was unreasonable. In flatly rejecting the application of a strict liability standard, the Pinto decision provides the guidance that the CACI committee solicited from the courts in its \u201cDirections for Use\u201d commentary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Pinto <\/em>decision is available at the California Courts website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kathryn Ashton | Clyde & Co. In March 2021, an appellate court decision clarified what the law has always been in California; that to find an insurer liable for bad faith, the insured (or its assignee or a judgment creditor) must plead and prove the insurer acted unreasonably or without proper cause. California\u2019s standardized jury… Continue reading An Insurer Is Not Subject to Strict Liability for the Failure to Accept a Reasonable Settlement<\/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":[9895,11433,257],"class_list":["post-898569","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bad-faith-insurance-coverage","tag-advise-consult","tag-bad-faith-failure-to-settle","tag-bad-faith-insurance-claim","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nAn Insurer Is Not Subject to Strict Liability for the Failure to Accept a Reasonable Settlement - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"to find an insurer liable for bad faith, the insured must plead and prove the insurer acted unreasonably or without proper cause\" \/>\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\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"An Insurer Is Not Subject to Strict Liability for the Failure to Accept a Reasonable Settlement - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"to find an insurer liable for bad faith, the insured must plead and prove the insurer acted unreasonably or without proper cause\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/\" \/>\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=\"2021-03-17T22:13:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-17T22:13:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"An Insurer Is Not Subject to Strict Liability for the Failure to Accept a Reasonable Settlement\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-17T22:13:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-17T22:13:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/\"},\"wordCount\":1403,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"Bad Faith Failure to Settle\",\"Bad Faith Insurance Claim\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Bad Faith\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/\",\"name\":\"An Insurer Is Not Subject to Strict Liability for the Failure to Accept a Reasonable Settlement - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-17T22:13:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-17T22:13:37+00:00\",\"description\":\"to find an insurer liable for bad faith, the insured must plead and prove the insurer acted unreasonably or without proper cause\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"An Insurer Is Not Subject to Strict Liability for the Failure to Accept a Reasonable Settlement - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"to find an insurer liable for bad faith, the insured must plead and prove the insurer acted unreasonably or without proper cause","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\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"An Insurer Is Not Subject to Strict Liability for the Failure to Accept a Reasonable Settlement - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"to find an insurer liable for bad faith, the insured must plead and prove the insurer acted unreasonably or without proper cause","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2021-03-17T22:13:33+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-17T22:13:37+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\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"An Insurer Is Not Subject to Strict Liability for the Failure to Accept a Reasonable Settlement","datePublished":"2021-03-17T22:13:33+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-17T22:13:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/"},"wordCount":1403,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","Bad Faith Failure to Settle","Bad Faith Insurance Claim"],"articleSection":["Bad Faith"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/","name":"An Insurer Is Not Subject to Strict Liability for the Failure to Accept a Reasonable Settlement - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-03-17T22:13:33+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-17T22:13:37+00:00","description":"to find an insurer liable for bad faith, the insured must plead and prove the insurer acted unreasonably or without proper cause","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-liability-failure\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3LL3","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/898569","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=898569"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/898569\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":898570,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/898569\/revisions\/898570"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=898569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=898569"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=898569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}