{"id":905450,"date":"2026-03-12T16:10:05","date_gmt":"2026-03-12T22:10:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=905450"},"modified":"2026-03-12T16:10:07","modified_gmt":"2026-03-12T22:10:07","slug":"direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/","title":{"rendered":"Where There\u2019s Smoke, There\u2019s…Direct Physical Loss?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Elizabeth Doyle | Zelle<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The January 2025 Southern California wildfires destroyed more than 18,000 structures, burned nearly 50,000 acres, and caused the evacuation of more than 200,000 people. One year later, thousands of residents of Altadena and Pacific Palisades whose homes did not burn have nevertheless not returned because they claim their homes are uninhabitable due to toxic smoke exposure. Numerous residents report that their insurers have denied their claims for alternative living expenses because the homes are structurally intact and \u201clook pristine.\u201d [1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

California Insurance Code Section 2071 establishes the standard form of fire insurance policies within the state. The standard fire policy provides coverage for \u201call loss by fire.\u201d Ins. Code \u00a7 2071(a).) The Standard homeowners form generally covers \u201cdirect physical loss or damage\u201d to covered property, unless excluded. Under California law, to trigger coverage, \u201cthere must be some physicality to the loss of property \u2013 e.g. a physical alteration, physical contamination, or physical destruction.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Whether smoke, soot, and\/or ash qualify as \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d under a first party property policy is one of the primary disputes between policy holders and insurers adjusting fire loss claims. Although the body of case law on the smoke damage issue is likely to develop further over the next few years, there are currently very few state and federal appellate decisions analyzing whether smoke exposure qualifies as \u201cdirect physical loss<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To assist the development of strategies for handling fire loss claims in California, we examine the relevant cases decided in 2025 concerning wildfire smoke damage claims:  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bottega, LLC v. National Surety Corporation<\/em>, No. 21-cv-03614-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2025) (\u201cBottega<\/em>\u201d)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On January 10, 2025, as the Los Angeles wildfires would burn for the next twenty days, U.S. District Court Judge Jacqueline Corley issued a summary judgment ruling in a suit brought by a Napa Valley restaurant that suffered business income losses as a result of the 2017 Napa \/ North Bay Fires. Although the fires did not burn the restaurant itself, the plaintiff restaurant claimed that smoke, soot, and ash \u201cinundated\u201d the premises, forcing it to close for one day after the fire and for a week shortly thereafter. Upon reopening, despite the employees\u2019 daily cleaning of the wall coverings and upholstery, and eventually replacing the upholstered surfaces, the restaurant could only use one-third of its seating due to the ongoing smell of smoke. The restaurant sought coverage under its commercial property insurance policy, which covered losses due to \u201c<\/strong>direct physical loss or damage.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff\u2019s insurer, National Surety, denied coverage on the grounds that because the restaurant was still structurally intact, it had not suffered a \u201cphysical loss\u201d as required by the policy. In the ensuing coverage litigation, the District Court denied National Surety\u2019s motion for summary judgment, finding that: (i) the smoke and soot contamination rendered the property unfit for normal use, meeting the standard for \u201cdirect physical loss;\u201d and (ii) National Surety\u2019s responses to requests for admissions confirmed that the premises had suffered smoke damage, undermining its \u201cno direct physical loss\u201d argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court rejected National Surety\u2019s reliance upon COVID-19 property insurance cases, pointing out that the courts in those cases distinguished COVID-19, described as a \u201cvirus that can be disinfected,\u201d from \u201cnoxious substances and fumes that physically alter property.\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/a> The court reasoned: \u201cWhereas a virus is more like dust and debris that can be removed through cleaning, [citations] smoke is more like asbestos and gases that physically alter property.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Bottega<\/em> is a federal trial court decision and thus not binding precedent, the court\u2019s focus on \u201cphysical alteration\u201d beyond what can be wiped away offers a window into how other trial courts in California may analyze the \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d question in the context of ash, soot and smoke.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gharibian v. Wawanesa General Insurance Co. <\/em>(2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 730 (\u201cGharibian<\/em>\u201d)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On February 7, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision arising from homeowners in Granada Hills, California who sought coverage after the 2019 Saddle Ridge Fire deposited wildfire debris around their home, located a half mile from the burn zone. Although the fire did not reach the plaintiff\u2019s property, the exterior of their home was covered in soot and ash, and plaintiffs asserted that smoke odors lingered within the home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiff\u2019s homeowners\u2019 insurer, Wawanesa, paid $23,000 for professional cleaning services, which plaintiffs did not use. Wawanesa eventually denied coverage, taking the position that there was no \u201cdirect physical loss to property\u201d because the home was structurally intact and that removable debris did not qualify.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the course of the litigation, the plaintiff insureds\u2019 expert testified that while soot and ash were present on the property, soot does not physically damage the property, and ash only causes damage if left on metal or vinyl and exposed to water. Plaintiff\u2019s expert further testified that \u201cthe home could be fully cleaned by wiping the surfaces, HEPA vacuuming, and power washing the exterior.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On summary judgment, the trial court concluded, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, that Wawanesa did not breach the insurance contract because the plaintiffs did not have a covered claim. The court ruled that, as established by the plaintiffs\u2019 own experts, wildfire debris did not \u2018alter the property itself in a lasting and persistent manner\u2019 \u2026 all evidence indicates that the debris was \u2018easily cleaned or removed from the property’.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notably, the Gharibian<\/em> decision was based on Plaintiff\u2019s own evidence that the debris could be cleaned up through basic cleaning methods and the property thus restored to its pre-loss condition. It is clear the nature of the impact the soot, ash and smoke have on the property will be critical to a determination of whether there was covered \u201cphysical loss or damage.\u201d The decision underscores that it is the insured\u2019s burden to prove a loss comes within the scope of coverage. As applied to smoke, a homeowner whose property experiences smoke exposure and debris must demonstrate that the debris caused \u201cphysical alteration of property.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aliff v. California Fair Plan Association, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. Case No. 21STCV20095 <\/em><\/strong>(\u201cAliff\u201d)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The California Fair Plan (\u201cthe Fair Plan\u201d) is a state-mandated, last-resort insurance program providing basic fire coverage for California property owners unable to get homeowners insurance from traditional carriers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2017, the Fair Plan redefined \u201cdirect physical loss\u201d in the Fair Plan policy to require \u201cpermanent physical changes\u201d to the property and changed the policy\u2019s definition of smoke damage to require that the damage be \u201c<\/em>visible to the unaided human eye\u201d or \u201cdetected by the unaided human nose of an average person, and not by the subjective senses of [the insured] or by laboratory testing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2021, plaintiff Jay Aliff filed a class action lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Fair Plan\u2019s policy language violated Insurance Code Section 2071.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In June 2025, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stuart Rice granted Aliff\u2019s motion for summary judgment. Judge Rice ruled that the Fair Plan policy requirement that all physical loss be \u201cpermanent\u201d violated Insurance Code Section 2071 because it narrowed the coverage required in the Section 2071 standard form, which requires broader coverage for all \u201closs by fire.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citing the California Supreme Court decision in Another Planet Entertainment v. Vigilant Insurance Co.<\/em>, the court emphasized that physical loss does not require property damage to be permanent; only that the property be demonstrably altered or changed.[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court also rejected the Fair Plan policy\u2019s changed definition of \u201csmoke damage,\u201d which required that the damage be \u201c<\/em>visible to the unaided human eye\u201d or \u201cdetected by the unaided human nose of an average person, and not by the subjective senses of [the insured] or by laboratory testing.\u201d The court ruled that requiring sensory perception, rather than laboratory testing, in order to satisfy the policy definition was inconsistent with Another Planet<\/em>, which held that \u201cdirect physical loss or damage” to property does not have to be visible. Because the changed definition of \u201csmoke damage\u201d resulted in less favorable coverage than required by the standard form policy in Section 2071, the court concluded the FAIR Plan\u2019s smoke damage definition was unlawful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Fair Plan did not file a Notice of Appeal of the ruling and, based on the court\u2019s minute orders contained in the Los Angeles County Superior Court docket for this matter, the parties reached a settlement in November 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on the foregoing, it is important when adjusting ash, soot and smoke claims to evaluate whether the ash, soot and smoke physically altered property or if it can simply be cleaned. This will likely be driven by expert testing and opinions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> See, e.g. Why some LA fire victims sometimes wish their homes were destroyed \u2013 NBC Los Angeles nbclosangeles.com\/news\/local\/toxic-homes-eaton-palisades-fire-insurance-ricardo-lara\/3829657<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Inns-by-the-Sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., 71 Cal.App.5th<\/sup> 688, 707 <\/em>(2021)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Bottega, LLC v. National Surety Corporation<\/em>, 2025 WL 71989 *4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Gharibian v. Wawanesa General Insurance Co.<\/em> (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 730, 739.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Another Planet Entertainment v. Vigilant Insurance Co.<\/em>, 15 Cal.5th 1106 (2024)<\/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":"

Elizabeth Doyle | Zelle The January 2025 Southern California wildfires destroyed more than 18,000 structures, burned nearly 50,000 acres, and caused the evacuation of more than 200,000 people. One year later, thousands of residents of Altadena and Pacific Palisades whose homes did not burn have nevertheless not returned because they claim their homes are uninhabitable… Continue reading Where There\u2019s Smoke, There\u2019s…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":[10721],"tags":[9895,340,22,10790],"class_list":["post-905450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance","tag-advise-consult","tag-direct-physical-loss","tag-insurance","tag-smoke-damage-claim","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nWhere There\u2019s Smoke, There\u2019s...Direct Physical Loss? - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"there are currently very few state and federal appellate decisions analyzing whether smoke exposure qualifies as \u201cdirect physical loss.\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\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Where There\u2019s Smoke, There\u2019s...Direct Physical Loss? - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"there are currently very few state and federal appellate decisions analyzing whether smoke exposure qualifies as \u201cdirect physical loss.\u201d\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-03-12T22:10:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-12T22:10:07+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\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Where There\u2019s Smoke, There\u2019s…Direct Physical Loss?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-12T22:10:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-12T22:10:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/\"},\"wordCount\":1540,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"Direct Physical Loss\",\"insurance\",\"Smoke Damage Claim\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/\",\"name\":\"Where There\u2019s Smoke, There\u2019s...Direct Physical Loss? - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-12T22:10:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-12T22:10:07+00:00\",\"description\":\"there are currently very few state and federal appellate decisions analyzing whether smoke exposure qualifies as \u201cdirect physical loss.\u201d\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"Where There\u2019s Smoke, There\u2019s...Direct Physical Loss? - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"there are currently very few state and federal appellate decisions analyzing whether smoke exposure qualifies as \u201cdirect physical loss.\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\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Where There\u2019s Smoke, There\u2019s...Direct Physical Loss? - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"there are currently very few state and federal appellate decisions analyzing whether smoke exposure qualifies as \u201cdirect physical loss.\u201d","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2026-03-12T22:10:05+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-12T22:10:07+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\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Where There\u2019s Smoke, There\u2019s…Direct Physical Loss?","datePublished":"2026-03-12T22:10:05+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-12T22:10:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/"},"wordCount":1540,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","Direct Physical Loss","insurance","Smoke Damage Claim"],"articleSection":["Insurance"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/","name":"Where There\u2019s Smoke, There\u2019s...Direct Physical Loss? - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-03-12T22:10:05+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-12T22:10:07+00:00","description":"there are currently very few state and federal appellate decisions analyzing whether smoke exposure qualifies as \u201cdirect physical loss.\u201d","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/direct-physical-loss-smoke-damage\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3Ny2","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/905450","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=905450"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/905450\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":905451,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/905450\/revisions\/905451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=905450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=905450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=905450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}