{"id":905950,"date":"2026-07-29T16:24:35","date_gmt":"2026-07-29T22:24:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=905950"},"modified":"2026-07-29T16:24:39","modified_gmt":"2026-07-29T22:24:39","slug":"public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/","title":{"rendered":"The Last Word on CGL Coverage for Expanding \u201cPublic Nuisance\u201d Torts Is Still to Come"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Lisseth Ochoa-Chavarria and Chris Popecki | Policyholder Pulse<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the last decade, governmental plaintiffs have secured tens of billions of dollars in settlements from certain manufacturers, wholesale distributors and pharmacy operators that allegedly contributed to a nationwide epidemic of opioid use disorder (OUD), a\/k\/a addiction. Bellwether litigation has centered on expansive \u201cpublic nuisance\u201d claims<\/a>\u2014reminiscent of covered pollution and gun violence claims that surfaced decades ago\u2014alleging that defendants throughout the opioid supply chain caused and must remediate widespread OUD by changing their practices and funding the treatment of persons who sustained opioid-related injuries. Encouraged by the settlement leverage opioid claims generated, the plaintiffs\u2019 bar has expanded public nuisance litigation in cases involving climate change, ultra-processed foods, lead paint and, more recently, social media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the financial stakes of public nuisance litigation are high, then so are the stakes for attendant commercial general liability (CGL) insurance claims. That is why, since the early days of the opioid suits, insurers have coordinated an effort to defeat coverage for governmental public nuisance claims\u2014via early summary judgment motions and appeals in declaratory judgment litigation\u2014by advocating for a restrictive interpretation of the standard CGL insuring agreement covering \u201cdamages because of bodily injury or property damage\u201d that courts have interpreted broadly for decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though early appellate results favored policyholders, the pendulum swung in insurers\u2019 direction largely because of\u00a0decisions by Delaware courts<\/a>\u00a0holding that various governments\u2019 opioid public nuisance claims sought non-covered \u201ceconomic losses\u201d\u2014a term traditionally reserved for a breach of contract, warranty or other commercial violation that CGL policies often do not cover (as opposed to\u00a0tort claims<\/em>\u00a0that impose liability because the insured allegedly caused third-party bodily injury like OUD or property damage like climate change). In the context of alleged nuisances causing physical harm to individuals, those decisions adopt a limiting interpretation of the standard \u201cdamages because of bodily injury\u201d coverage clause by holding that a government\u2019s claim may be covered\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0if it concerns treatment of a particular person\u2019s injuries, but not\u00a0many\u00a0<\/em>persons\u2019 injuries that the insured allegedly caused across a particular community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Significantly, these Delaware decisions do not only apply Delaware law, but also\u00a0predict a pro-insurer outcome under the laws of other states<\/a>\u00a0where appellate courts have not yet considered opioid coverage claims for themselves. To be sure,\u00a0dissenting opinions<\/a>\u00a0and some\u00a0other<\/a>\u00a0courts<\/a>\u00a0have rejected the Delaware framework as a departure from established interpretive principles that do not countenance strict construction of broad promises to cover tort liability because of physical harm for which the insured is deemed legally responsible. For example, courts have long found coverage for governmental claims to remediate migrating pollution that may reach diffuse persons, properties or public waters, even though remediation costs may be quantified in \u201ceconomic\u201d terms (like all covered \u201cdamages\u201d). Yet, the Delaware framework has sprouted a line of federal and certain state court\u00a0decisions<\/a>\u00a0holding that governmental public nuisance claims founded upon allegations that the insured caused widespread OUD do not seek \u201cdamages because of bodily injury.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But those pro-insurer decisions will not provide the last word on coverage of governments\u2019 opioid claims. In a\u00a0recent opinion<\/a>\u00a0certifying the \u201cdamages because of bodily injury\u201d question to the high courts of both Florida and Georgia in the\u00a0Publix Super Markets\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Bloodworth Wholesale Drugs<\/em>\u00a0opioid coverage appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit provided a timely reminder that each state\u2019s appellate courts will be the final arbiters of coverage for governments\u2019 opioid claims\u2014and for the groundswell of public nuisance litigation that is reaching policyholders in other industries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Eleventh Circuit\u2019s Opinion Certifying the \u201cDamages Because of Bodily Injury\u201d Question Portends New Developments for \u201cPublic Nuisance\u201d Liability Coverage<\/strong>
The \u201cdamages because of bodily injury\u201d issue reached the Eleventh Circuit on separate appeals by Publix (a pharmacy operator) and Bloodworth (a wholesale distributor) from summary judgment decisions by federal district courts in Florida and Georgia, respectively, holding that insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify governmental opioid claims. After full appellate briefing and argument of the merits, the Eleventh Circuit decided that \u201cprinciples of federalism and comity\u201d demanded certification to the Florida and Georgia high courts in lieu of predicting the answers to \u201cimportant questions of state law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Eleventh Circuit clarified the certified question by confirming that \u201c[n]one of the parties dispute that the underlying opioid lawsuits seek \u2018damages\u2019 or that opioid addiction and overdose qualify as \u2018bodily injuries\u201d; rather, the coverage dispute \u201cis over whether the lawsuits against Bloodworth and Publix are for damages \u2018because of\u2019 those injuries.\u201d Recounting insurers\u2019 argument \u201cthat only lawsuits that seek redress for particular injuries to identifiable people are covered,\u201d the court observed that insurers developed this interpretation circumstantially from \u201cthe policies\u2019 notice provisions\u201d and other terms beyond the \u201cdamages because of bodily injury\u201d coverage clause. While decisions from Delaware and elsewhere have adopted insurers\u2019 interpretation (and others have not), the appellate authorities of Florida and Georgia gave the Eleventh Circuit \u201clittle to go on that directly addresses this coverage issue.\u201d Thus, the Eleventh Circuit concluded it had \u201cno place in deciding\u201d for Florida\u2019s and Georgia\u2019s own courts whether governmental opioid claims seek \u201cdamages because of bodily injury\u201d based on each state\u2019s general interpretive principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notably, this was not the first time the Eleventh Circuit declined to answer whether governmental opioid claims seek covered \u201cdamages because of bodily injury.\u201d In\u00a0Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Anda, Inc.<\/em><\/a>, the court heard an appeal from another Florida district court opinion which held that a governmental lawsuit against an opioid distributor did not seek \u201cdamages because of bodily injury.\u201d But the Eleventh Circuit declined to reach that issue, finding the \u201cbetter conclusion\u201d to be that \u201cProducts Exclusions\u201d in the policies at issue (which are not a standard feature of most CGL policies) barred coverage for suits arising from opioid products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Publix <\/em>and Bloodworth<\/em> appeals, the Eleventh Circuit once again declined to predict whether governmental public nuisance claims seek covered \u201cdamages because of bodily injury.\u201d This marks a shift away from the approach of other courts that have rejected coverage for governmental opioid claims absent, or overlooking, on-point guidance from applicable state law. With the Florida and Georgia Supreme Courts soon to consider the \u201cdamages because of bodily injury\u201d issue for themselves, and similar opioid coverage appeals working their way through other states\u2019 courts, the full coverage landscape for governmental public nuisance claims has not yet come into focus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Floodgates Have Opened: Policyholders in Other Industries Face the Same \u201cPublic Nuisance\u201d Dilemma\u2014and the Same Need for Defense and Indemnity Coverage<\/strong>
Court decisions siding with the insurers\u2019 \u201cdamages because of bodily injury\u201d (or \u201cproperty damage\u201d) defense have accepted the argument that finding coverage might open the \u201cfloodgates\u201d of litigation by incentivizing governments and other plaintiffs to use the tort system to mitigate the financial burden of remediating widespread injuries\u2014and ultimately pass on costs to insurers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the floodgates are already open. Building on substantial opioid litigation recoveries, the plaintiffs\u2019 bar is wielding public nuisance claims against a widening field of industries. Decisions narrowly construing coverage for \u201cdamages because of bodily injury or property damage\u201d do not deter these claims, but could force policyholders to bear substantial unreimbursed costs of defending and potentially settling such litigation despite purchasing the broadest available insurance for tort claims alleging that the insured\u2019s negligence caused third-party physical injury or damage. The issue is whether policyholders will foot this bill alone (if they are able), or share it with their insurers\u2014a matter governed by contracts that have long been interpreted broadly by courts to cover government-imposed remediation costs (absent applicable exclusions).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Insurers\u2019 argument also suggests that the contracted and paid-for terms of the insurance should be narrowed based on a court\u2019s public policy preferences. If insurers advocate for a public policy against funding governments\u2019 public nuisance litigation, they are also advocating against a government\u2019s policy of pursuing such claims. That choice conflicts with principles of insurance policy interpretation while improperly inserting the courts in decisions belonging to the executive branch of each state government. If insurers\u2019 concern is that liability should not be imposed for claims based on supposedly attenuated public nuisance injuries\u2014a position\u00a0some courts<\/a>\u00a0have embraced\u2014then the proper place to raise those remoteness concerns is in defense of their insureds in the underlying tort claims, rather than second-guessing the merits of tort liability as a supposed defense to coverage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, many states\u2019 appellate courts have not yet addressed coverage for governmental public nuisance torts or similar remediation claims (or have not done so beyond the environmental cleanup context). Policyholders that are or could be swept up in the next wave of public nuisance litigation should be prepared for insurers to reserve rights or deny coverage based on the \u201cdamages because of bodily injury or property damage\u201d defense\u2014and potentially litigate that issue through appeal. These policyholders should consult coverage counsel early in the claims process before potential disputes with their insurers arise, to ensure timely notice and strategies that bear in mind the evolving coverage precedent in this burgeoning area. Coverage counsel may also assist during the policy procurement process to help identify, plan for, and mitigate risks (such as\u00a0how \u201cper-occurrence\u201d self-insured retentions may apply<\/a>) that often arise with large exposures like public nuisance claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While insurers will likely use exclusions in newly issued CGL policies to limit their exposure to covering high-exposure public nuisance claims going forward, CGL policies issued in years past may still be responsive to claims that allege an ongoing public nuisance based on injurious conduct that began long ago. Depending on the twists and turns of still-developing coverage precedent, those policies may be highly valuable assets for businesses that are swept up by the rising tide of public nuisance litigation.<\/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 801.641.8304, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lisseth Ochoa-Chavarria and Chris Popecki | Policyholder Pulse Over the last decade, governmental plaintiffs have secured tens of billions of dollars in settlements from certain manufacturers, wholesale distributors and pharmacy operators that allegedly contributed to a nationwide epidemic of opioid use disorder (OUD), a\/k\/a addiction. Bellwether litigation has centered on expansive \u201cpublic nuisance\u201d claims\u2014reminiscent of… Continue reading The Last Word on CGL Coverage for Expanding \u201cPublic Nuisance\u201d Torts Is Still to Come<\/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":[10791,30,10721],"tags":[9895,11180,4739,12342],"class_list":["post-905950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commercial-general-liability-policy","category-general-liability-policy","category-insurance","tag-advise-consult","tag-cgl-insurance-coverage","tag-commercial-general-liability-policy","tag-public-nuisance-claims","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe Last Word on CGL Coverage for Expanding \u201cPublic Nuisance\u201d Torts Is Still to Come - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"policies may be highly valuable assets for businesses that are swept up by the rising tide of public nuisance litigation\" \/>\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\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Last Word on CGL Coverage for Expanding \u201cPublic Nuisance\u201d Torts Is Still to Come - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"policies may be highly valuable assets for businesses that are swept up by the rising tide of public nuisance litigation\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-07-29T22:24:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-29T22:24:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"The Last Word on CGL Coverage for Expanding \u201cPublic Nuisance\u201d Torts Is Still to Come\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-29T22:24:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-29T22:24:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/\"},\"wordCount\":1699,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"CGL Insurance Coverage\",\"Commercial General Liability Policy\",\"Public Nuisance Claims\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Commercial General Liability Policy\",\"General Liability Policy\",\"Insurance\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/\",\"name\":\"The Last Word on CGL Coverage for Expanding \u201cPublic Nuisance\u201d Torts Is Still to Come - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-29T22:24:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-29T22:24:39+00:00\",\"description\":\"policies may be highly valuable assets for businesses that are swept up by the rising tide of public nuisance litigation\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"The Last Word on CGL Coverage for Expanding \u201cPublic Nuisance\u201d Torts Is Still to Come - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"policies may be highly valuable assets for businesses that are swept up by the rising tide of public nuisance litigation","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\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Last Word on CGL Coverage for Expanding \u201cPublic Nuisance\u201d Torts Is Still to Come - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"policies may be highly valuable assets for businesses that are swept up by the rising tide of public nuisance litigation","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2026-07-29T22:24:35+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-29T22:24:39+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"The Last Word on CGL Coverage for Expanding \u201cPublic Nuisance\u201d Torts Is Still to Come","datePublished":"2026-07-29T22:24:35+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-29T22:24:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/"},"wordCount":1699,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","CGL Insurance Coverage","Commercial General Liability Policy","Public Nuisance Claims"],"articleSection":["Commercial General Liability Policy","General Liability Policy","Insurance"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/","name":"The Last Word on CGL Coverage for Expanding \u201cPublic Nuisance\u201d Torts Is Still to Come - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-29T22:24:35+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-29T22:24:39+00:00","description":"policies may be highly valuable assets for businesses that are swept up by the rising tide of public nuisance litigation","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/public-nuisance-litigation-coverage-last-word\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3NG6","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/905950","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=905950"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/905950\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":905951,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/905950\/revisions\/905951"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=905950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=905950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=905950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}