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.

Opinion:
PECOS VALLEY COTTON OIL, INC., a New Mexico Corporation, and Cimar-ron Insurance Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, and National Surety Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 84-1933.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 8, 1986.
Thomas L. Marek, of Marek & Yarbro, Carlsbad, N.M., for plaintiffs-appellants.
James H. Johansen, of Shaffer, Butt, Thornton & Baehr, Albuquerque, N.M., for defendants-appellees.
Before LOGAN, SETH, and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.
LOGAN, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R. App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir.R. 10(e). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
In this diversity case tried to the court, the district judge granted defendants’ motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) made at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, holding that plaintiffs had shown no right to relief. Plaintiffs appealed; we affirm.
Plaintiffs are Pecos Valley Cotton Oil, Inc. and its general liability insurer, Cimar-ron Insurance Company. Defendants are the insurers of a tractor/trailer rig owned by William W. Taylor, III, an independent contractor who was injured on Pecos Valley’s premises while he was delivering cottonseed to Pecos Valley. Taylor sued Pecos Valley for damages arising out of his injuries. This lawsuit is over which insurance company is obligated to defend Pecos Valley against Taylor’s claim.
Taylor had driven his truck onto a ramp at Pecos Valley in order to transfer the cottonseed from his truck into a seed pit. A large iron door covered the seed pit. While Taylor was opening the back of his truck, the seed pit door, which was open at the time, fell on Taylor and injured him. The district court found that the door fell because of an improper weld, which is not challenged on appeal. In fact, Pecos Valley’s local manager testified that an improper weld caused the accident.
In this action, Pecos Valley seeks a declaratory judgment that Taylor’s insurance policy on the tractor/trailer, issued by Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, a subsidiary of National Surety Corporation, covers Pecos Valley pursuant to an omnibus coverage clause that extends coverage to anyone “using” the vehicle. The policy also includes a loading/unloading exclusion that precludes coverage for: “[bjodily injury or property damage resulting from the loading of property before it has been put in or on the covered auto or the unloading of property after it has been taken off or out of the covered auto.” R. I, 11. Pecos Valley contends that because it was actually in the process of unloading the tractor/trailer when the injury occurred, it is covered by Taylor’s insurance policy and that defendants are obligated to defend Pecos Valley.
There have been many cases involving construction of loading/unloading clauses in automobile insurance policies. The difficult issue in most is whether the loading/unloading process had begun or whether the claimant was an authorized user of the vehicle. In this case, the trial court assumed that the unloading process had begun and that Pecos Valley was an authorized user of the tractor/trailer. Yet nearly all the cases require a causal connection between the loading/unloading and the accident. It is on this basis that the district court denied relief, finding an insufficient causal connection between the unloading of the cottonseed and the accident. Some courts might disagree. See, e.g., Unigard Mutual Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 466 F.2d 865, 867 (10th Cir.1972) (covered unloading activity not confined to actual use of vehicle under Oklahoma law); Caribou Four Corners, Inc. v. Truck Insurance Exchange, 443 F.2d 796, 801-02 (10th Cir.1971) (applying “but for” causation test under Utah law). Here, however, we must apply New Mexico law. The district court held that, under New Mexico law, Pecos Valley must show that its use of the vehicle was the “efficient and predominating cause” of the accident in order to be entitled to coverage under the insurance contract, relying on Southern California Petroleum Corp. v. Royal Indemnity Co., 70 N.M. 24, 369 P.2d 407 (1962).
In Southern California the Supreme Court of New Mexico indicated that “efficient and predominating cause” refers to a close causal relationship between the use of the vehicle and the accident; mere coincidence of the two events is insufficient. 369 P.2d at 411. It found no liability for an accident that occurred during the unloading of a cement truck to cement an oil well when the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the well owner or others.
Courts requiring a direct causal relationship between the use of the vehicle and the accident in a “loading/unloading” case have not found the requisite relationship in situations similar to the instant case. See, e.g., Kaufman v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 264 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir.1959) (opening of cellar door set in sidewalk to facilitate delivery not directly connected to injury to pedestrian); Indiana Lumberman’s Mutual Insurance Co. v. Statesman Insurance Co., 260 Ind. 32, 291 N.E.2d 897, 899 (1973) (collapse of stairs during delivery was predominant cause of injury, not use of vehicle).
The district court found that Pecos Valley was not within the policy’s coverage because the predominant cause of the accident was a faulty weld, not the unloading of the tractor/trailer. The district court applied the correct legal standard and its conclusion is fully supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
. By negative inference, and standard insurance policy interpretation, all other loading and unloading activity, within these two outside limits, remains covered under the general omnibus clause.
. Insurance cases discuss this causal connection problem in two contexts. In the first, a causal connection may have been missing because the loading or unloading had either terminated or not yet begun. In the second, although the loading or unloading process had begun, the causal connection may have been missing because there was a separate or supervening cause. The instant case raises the causal connection problem in the second context.
. Plaintiffs correctly observe that the causation discussion in Southern California was not necessary to the decision in that case. Absent a more conclusive decision, however, it is the best indication that we have on how New Mexico would determine this issue. See Hardy Salt Co. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 501 F.2d 1156, 1163 (10th Cir.) ("considered dicta” of state courts should be applied), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1033, 95 S.Ct. 515, 42 L.Ed.2d 308 (1974).

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.

Choices:

Answer: 2