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 "fiduciaries". 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.

Opinion:
TRANSIT CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lora Ruth SNOW, as Administratrix of the Estate of Tanner Snow, Deceased, Defendant-Appellant, v. Gunner HUDSON, Individually and d/b/a Hudson Ambulance Service, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 78-1934
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 17, 1978.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 18, 1978.
William H. Saliba, Mobile, Ala., for defendant-appellant.
Larry U. Sims, Champ Lyons, Jr., Mobile, Ala., for Transit Casualty Co.
Before RONEY, GEE and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
PER CURIAM:
The outcome of this Alabama diversity case turns on the construction of an automobile liability insurance policy providing coverage for damages for injuries “caused by accident” and arising from the use of the automobile. The automobile was an ambulance. The alleged “accident” was twofold: not taking an injured person to the nearest hospital, and keeping him strapped down in the ambulance so that he drowned in his own fluids. Holding there was no injury “caused by accident” within the meaning of the liability policy, we affirm the declaratory judgment that the insurance company had no duty to defend or pay any judgment rendered in a wrongful death action against its insured.
Lora Ruth Snow’s husband, Tanner Snow, was severely injured in an automobile accident and was picked up by defendant Gunner Hudson who operated Hudson Ambulance Service. Hudson did not deliver Snow to the nearest hospital but transported him approximately 45 miles to a hospital where he died. Snow’s widow sued Hudson and his ambulance service alleging that Hudson had (1) negligently, accidentally or wantonly kept Snow strapped on his back despite the fact he was regurgitating and (2) delayed his receiving medical attention by taking him to a distant hospital.
Transit Insurance Company had issued Hudson and his business an automobile insurance policy which provided in part:
1. Coverage A — Bodily Injury Liability: To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile, (emphasis added).
Mrs. Snow argues that an injury is accidental where an unexpected result arises from an intended act. See Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Blakeney, 340 So.2d 754, 755 (Ala.1976). Because Hudson did not act with the expectation that his actions would produce death, she contends, the death was accidental within the meaning of the policy.
Alabama case law suggests to the contrary. To be caused other than “by accident,” death or injury need not be an intended or expected result but merely one which is reasonably foreseeable. In O’Bar v. Southern Life & Health Ins. Co., 232 Ala. 459,168 So. 580, 582-83 (1936), for example, the court affirmed a determination that the insured’s death had not been caused solely through accidental means, as required for indemnification, where he intentionally provoked the attack which killed him, “heedless of the consequences which should have been anticipated.”
Similarly, this Court in Thomason v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 248 F.2d 417, 419 (5th Cir. 1957) determined that it is not sufficient that the actual injury be unexpected, but the cause of injury itself must have been unexpected and accidental. An injury, however unexpected and unforeseen, is not caused by accident, the Court explained, where it results from voluntary and intentional acts and where the ensuing injury is the natural result of those acts. Id. at 419. This interpretation of Alabama law was cited with approval by the Alabama Supreme Court in Armstrong v. Security Insurance Group, 292 Ala. 27, 288 So.2d 134, 136 (1973). See also Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Blakeney, 340 So.2d 754, 756 (Ala.1976); Emergency Aid Insurance Co. v. Dobbs, 263 Ala. 594, 83 So.2d 335, 338 (1955).
Because Tanner Snow’s injuries were the consequence of Hudson’s intentional acts of strapping Snow down on his back while regurgitating and transporting Snow to a distant hospital despite his severe injuries, the trial court properly determined that the injuries were not “caused by accident,” as required by the policy’s insuring clause. Thus the insurance company had no obligation to defend Hudson or pay on his behalf any damages recovered by Mrs. Snow.
Snow also argues the trial court erred in entertaining jurisdiction of this declaratory judgment action because the insurer was without clean hands, having voluntarily dismissed a similar action in state court. No authority was cited in support of this position. The district court’s jurisdiction was properly based on presence of the requisite jurisdictional amount and complete diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201.
The argument that no case or controversy exists is equally unpersuasive. The state court pleadings show that Hudson was sued on various allegations. As to one of them, “negligent operation” of a vehicle, the insurance company admitted its obligation to defend and indemnify. This admission in no way affects the controversy over the company’s obligations vis-a-vis the allegations of strapping Snow on his back and delaying his medical treatment.
AFFIRMED.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1