{
  "author": {
    "name": "Michael Katz",
    "webUrl": "/author/profile/michael-katz/",
    "description": "",
    "imageLarge": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f16d6fc2845f417ea0e93a3f2b6cd37d?s=136&d=mm&r=g",
    "estimate": 1,
    "social": [],
    "articles": [
      {
        "uri": "/2006/10/30/rethinking-arbitration/",
        "title": "Rethinking Arbitration",
        "byline": "Michael Katz",
        "kicker": "Market Insights",
        "prettyDate": "October 30, 2006",
        "timeToRead": "6 minute",
        "image": {
          "uri": "",
          "width": "",
          "height": ""
        },
        "authors": [
          {
            "webUrl": "/author/profile/michael-katz/",
            "name": "Michael Katz"
          }
        ],
        "kickerNode": [
          {
            "uri": "/market-insights/",
            "sectionName": "Market Insights"
          }
        ],
        "summary": "Insurers and reinsurers who believe that the current system of reinsurance arbitration represents a more efficient way of resolving reinsurance claims find themselves at a disadvantage because of nequities and ambiguities in the U.S. system.",
        "body": null
      }
    ]
  }
}