Task: songer_appbus

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
Appellee brought suit as.beneficiary to recover on two certificates of life insurance issued under a policy of group insurance covering the skilled employees of the Humphreys Corporation and recovered judgment for $3,500. Error is assigned to the direction of a verdict for plaintiff and the denial of a like motion on behalf of defendant.
It appears that appellant issued a group policy of life insurance to the Humphreys Corporation covering its skilled employees but not common laborers. Madison C. Catchings was employed by the Humphreys Corporation as a driller, classed as a skilled employee, and was given a certificate of insurance under the group insurance policy for $1,500. The premium on this policy was paid annually in advance by the employer. Under the provisions of the group policy, he was entitled to take out additional life insurance up to $2,000, and did so, and a certificate was issued to him. Premiums for the additional insurance were paid for the insured monthly by the employer by deducting it from his pay checks and remitting to the insurance company. The policy provided that the employee was covered only while he retained his status as an employee, but, if temporarily laid off or granted a leave of absence, he was covered until such time as the employer notified the insurance company to cancel the insurance.
The policy contained provisions making it incontestable after one year and granting 31 days of grace for the payment of premiums. It also provided that, if the employment of the insured terminated for any reason, he was entitled to receive a converted policy upon any of the nonparticipating forms customarily issued by the insurance company, except term insurance, in the amount of his protection at the time his employment terminated, without further evidence of insurability, but the policy further provided that the converted policy required payment of premiums applicable to the class of risk to which the employee belonged at his then attained age, and that written application for the converted policy should be made by the employee, and the first premium paid, within 31 days following the termination of the insurance under the group policy.
The evidence showed conclusively that Catchings was permanently discharged as a driller on June 15, 1931, for carelessness while drilling a well, and was not merely temporarily laid off or given a leave of absence ; and that he would not have been reemployed as a driller until he had served a term of probation under another driller while employed as a “roughneck.” A “roughneck” is a common laborer, not classed as a skilled employee, and not covered by the policy. It was further conclusively shown that the employer promptly notified the insurance company of Catchings’ discharge, that the insurance was canceled by appellant as of June 15, 1931, the date of his discharge, and the unearned portion of the premium was returned. Catchings died on July 7, 1931, within 31 days after the policy was canceled.
As appears from a memorandum in the record, the District Court was of the opinion that the provision permitting the insured to apply for and receive a converted policy within 31 days kept the original insurance in force for that period.
The clauses providing for grace for the payment of premiums and making the policy incontestable have no application to the case. The privilege of conversion gave the insured the right to have a new policy issued to him within 31 days after the termination of the insurance under the group policy without submitting evidence of insurability, but did not automatically extend the insurance that had been properly canceled. In order to take advantage of the clause, it was necessary for Catchings to select the form of policy he wanted, make written application for it, and pay the first premium in advance, none of which he did.
We find no provision in the policy that could be construed as automatically extending it for 31 days to allow the employee to make up his mind as to whether he wanted a converted policy. It was error to direct a verdict for plaintiff and error to overrule the motion of defendant. The following well-considered cases are in point: Fearon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 138 Misc. 710, 246 N. Y. S. 701; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Hinkle (Tenn. App.) 74 S.W.(2d) 1082; Duval v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 82 N. H. 543, 136 A. 400, 50 A. L. R. 1276.
Reversed and remanded.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1