{"id":904566,"date":"2025-07-15T16:10:33","date_gmt":"2025-07-15T22:10:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=904566"},"modified":"2025-07-15T16:10:35","modified_gmt":"2025-07-15T22:10:35","slug":"bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/","title":{"rendered":"Fourth DCA Reverses Jury Verdict Due to Improper Admission of Claims Handling and Bad Faith Evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Tiffany Bustamante and Stephanie Roman | Cozen O’Connor<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Naze<\/em>, No. 4D2024-0098 (Fla. 4th DCA June 4, 2025), the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict in favor of the insured, holding that the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant and unduly prejudicial evidence of claims handling in a breach-of-contract-only action. The decision reinforces the evidentiary boundaries governing insurance litigation in Florida and confirms that bad faith themes cannot be introduced unless and until a bad faith<\/a> claim is properly pled and ripe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Factual Background<\/u><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The lawsuit arose from a water damage insurance claim reported by the insured on December 10, 2020. The insurer promptly conducted a site inspection and, on December 18, 2020, sent a letter to the Insured requesting fourteen categories of post-loss documentation. The insured, through their public adjuster, provided partial responses on December 29, 2020, and submitted additional materials in January 2021. On February 19, 2021, the insurer issued a second request following up on the outstanding documents. On March 10, 2021, the public adjuster responded, stating that most documentation had been uploaded and inquiring about the status of the claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A claims examiner was formally assigned on April 8, 2021. Less than two weeks later, the insured filed suit asserting a single cause of action for breach of contract. The complaint did not contain any allegations of improper claims handling or bad faith. In response, the insurer denied liability and asserted multiple affirmative defenses based on policy provisions, including the insured\u2019s failure to substantially comply with post-loss obligations\u2014a condition precedent to coverage\u2014and the exclusion for damage caused by repeated seepage or leakage of water. Prior to trial, the insurer filed a motion in limine to preclude any reference to claims handling or bad faith. The trial court did not rule on the motion, and the parties\u2019 joint pretrial stipulation did not include any bad faith allegations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At trial, the insured\u2019s counsel repeatedly injected claims handling themes into what was pled as a straightforward breach of contract case. During opening statements, insured\u2019s counsel told the jury that the insurer \u201cwasn\u2019t waiting for documents\u2014they were just flailing around.\u201d Defense counsel objected, arguing that the remark improperly implicated claims handling and suggested bad faith. The insured\u2019s counsel argued that he was merely recounting the timeline of events. The court overruled the objection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The insured\u2019s public adjuster testified at length about the insurer\u2019s alleged inaction. He stated that he submitted documentation but received no meaningful response and that \u201cno desk examiner was assigned to the file until April 2021\u201d\u2014months after the claim was reported. He told the jury that \u201cintake really dropped the ball on this one\u201d and emphasized that \u201cno investigation\u201d took place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When counsel for the insured asked whether there had been \u201cno movement\u201d between document submissions, defense counsel again objected as the questioning went to claims handling. The trial court overruled the objection, explaining that the testimony related to \u201cthe movement of the claim\u201d and the \u201chandling of the claim between [insured] and [insurer],\u201d not evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The insurer moved for a mistrial, citing cumulative prejudice due to the insured\u2019s repeated references to claims handling and bad faith allegations. The court denied the motion, finding that the testimony did not rise to the level of bad faith and instead reflected commentary \u201con how the claim was handled.\u201d. The following day, the court instructed the jury on the applicable law. The insurer renewed its motions, including its motion for mistrial. The trial court denied the motions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During closing argument, the insured\u2019s counsel returned to the same bad faith themes, telling the jury: \u201cThere was no investigation. What investigation are they talking about? There was no investigation.\u201d<\/em> The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of the insured. Following the verdict, the insurer moved for a new trial, arguing that the court erred in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial testimony concerning alleged claim mishandling, which had no bearing on the breach of contract claim and served only to improperly suggest bad faith. The motion emphasized that such evidence violated well-settled Florida law prohibiting parties from litigating claims handling issues in breach of contract-only trials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response, the insured contended that the testimony merely established the timeline and was relevant to rebut the insurer\u2019s affirmative defense regarding the insured\u2019s failure to comply with post-loss obligations. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the testimony reflected \u201comission and negligence,\u201d not bad faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The Fourth DCA\u2019s Reversal<\/u><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

On appeal, the Fourth DCA held that the insurer was deprived of a fair proceeding due to the improper admission of claims handling evidence. The court found that this evidence\u2014offered through testimony and argument\u2014had little to no relevance to the breach of contract claim but carried a high risk of unfair prejudice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In doing so, the court relied on Section 90.403, Florida Statutes<\/strong>, which bars the admission of even relevant evidence when \u201cits probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury.\u201d The court emphasized that references to delay, omission, or incompetence in the handling of a claim\u2014regardless of whether they are labeled as \u201cbackground\u201d or \u201ctimeline\u201d\u2014risk misleading jurors into rendering a verdict based on perceived bad faith rather than the actual policy terms or contractual defenses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To support its holding, the court cited Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Mendoza<\/em>, 250 So. 3d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), where it reversed a jury verdict after similar claims handling testimony was admitted in a breach-only case. In Mendoza<\/em>, the court warned that introducing evidence of an adjuster \u201cnot doing a good job\u201d can lead the jury to rule for the insured based on perceived mishandling\u2014rather than whether the loss was covered under the policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finding that \u201cthe same error occurred [here],\u201d the court noted that the public adjuster\u2019s remarks that the insurer \u201cdropped the ball\u201d and \u201cdid not \u201ctake [the claim] seriously,\u201d combined with counsel\u2019s repeated emphasis that \u201cthere was no investigation,\u201d improperly invited the jury to view the dispute through a bad faith lens\u2014even though no such claim was pled. Because this theme permeated the trial, the error was not harmless and warranted reversal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal Takeaways for Practitioners<\/u><\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The Fourth DCA\u2019s decision in Naze<\/em> serves as a reminder of the strict evidentiary limits that govern insurance litigation and serves as a reminder that courts and litigants must remain vigilant in enforcing them. Evidence or argument highlighting delay, omission, or incompetence\u2014hallmarks of a bad faith claim\u2014must be excluded unless a bad faith claim is properly pled and ripe. The appellate court reaffirmed that claims handling evidence, including testimony or commentary critiquing how an insurer processed a claim, is inadmissible in a breach of contract action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even when framed as \u201ctimeline,\u201d \u201cbackground,\u201d or \u201ccontext,\u201d such evidence can be grounds for reversal if it invites the jury to punish the insurer for perceived unfairness rather than deciding the case on the terms of the policy. Failing to draw a clear line between breach of contract and bad faith at trial not only risks jury confusion\u2014it risks reversal on appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tiffany Bustamante and Stephanie Roman | Cozen O’Connor In\u00a0Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Naze, No. 4D2024-0098 (Fla. 4th DCA June 4, 2025), the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict in favor of the insured, holding that the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant and unduly prejudicial evidence of claims handling in… Continue reading Fourth DCA Reverses Jury Verdict Due to Improper Admission of Claims Handling and Bad Faith Evidence<\/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":[9895,302,94],"class_list":["post-904566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bad-faith-insurance-coverage","tag-advise-consult","tag-bad-faith-claims","tag-florida","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nFourth DCA Reverses Jury Verdict Due to Improper Admission of Claims Handling and Bad Faith Evidence - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"confirms that bad faith themes cannot be introduced unless and until a bad faith claim is properly pled and ripe.\" \/>\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-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fourth DCA Reverses Jury Verdict Due to Improper Admission of Claims Handling and Bad Faith Evidence - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"confirms that bad faith themes cannot be introduced unless and until a bad faith claim is properly pled and ripe.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-07-15T22:10:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-07-15T22:10:35+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=\"6 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-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Fourth DCA Reverses Jury Verdict Due to Improper Admission of Claims Handling and Bad Faith Evidence\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-15T22:10:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-07-15T22:10:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/\"},\"wordCount\":1250,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"Bad Faith Claims\",\"Florida\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Bad Faith\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/\",\"name\":\"Fourth DCA Reverses Jury Verdict Due to Improper Admission of Claims Handling and Bad Faith Evidence - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-15T22:10:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-07-15T22:10:35+00:00\",\"description\":\"confirms that bad faith themes cannot be introduced unless and until a bad faith claim is properly pled and ripe.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"Fourth DCA Reverses Jury Verdict Due to Improper Admission of Claims Handling and Bad Faith Evidence - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"confirms that bad faith themes cannot be introduced unless and until a bad faith claim is properly pled and ripe.","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-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fourth DCA Reverses Jury Verdict Due to Improper Admission of Claims Handling and Bad Faith Evidence - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"confirms that bad faith themes cannot be introduced unless and until a bad faith claim is properly pled and ripe.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2025-07-15T22:10:33+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-07-15T22:10:35+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Fourth DCA Reverses Jury Verdict Due to Improper Admission of Claims Handling and Bad Faith Evidence","datePublished":"2025-07-15T22:10:33+00:00","dateModified":"2025-07-15T22:10:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/"},"wordCount":1250,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","Bad Faith Claims","Florida"],"articleSection":["Bad Faith"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/","name":"Fourth DCA Reverses Jury Verdict Due to Improper Admission of Claims Handling and Bad Faith Evidence - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-07-15T22:10:33+00:00","dateModified":"2025-07-15T22:10:35+00:00","description":"confirms that bad faith themes cannot be introduced unless and until a bad faith claim is properly pled and ripe.","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/bad-faith-claims-fourth-dca-reverses-jury-verdict\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3NjM","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/904566","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=904566"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/904566\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":904567,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/904566\/revisions\/904567"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=904566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=904566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=904566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}