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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
EAGLE FIRE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, an insurance corporation, and Firemen’s Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, an insurance corporation, Appellants, v. Pearl L. SNYDER, Appellee.
No. 9690.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
April 11, 1968.
Clarence P. Green, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellants.
Gus Rinehart, Oklahoma City, Okl., and W. B. Edwards, Seminole, Okl, for appellee.
Before PICKETT, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
PICKETT, Circuit Judge.
Pearl L. Snyder brought this action under the terms of an insurance policy issued to her by Eagle Fire Company of New York and Fireman’s Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey , to recover for the loss of her 4-unit apartment house and its contents. The policy provided limits of liability for loss by fire and explosion in the amounts of $18,000 on the building, and $6,000 on the personal property. The building was ravaged by an explosion and fire on March 4, 1966. The insurance company admitted the policy coverage, but denied liability to the extent claimed by Mrs. Snyder. The policy limited liability to “the extent of the actual cash value of the property at the time of loss, but not exceeding the amount which it would cost to repair or replace the property * * * .” Upon trial, the jury awarded the insured $10,000 for damage to the building, and $2,000 for the personalty. The sole question presented on appeal is whether the insured sustained the burden of proof necessary to establish the cash value of the property at the time of the loss. Although the evidence of the value is very meager, under the broad rule applicable in Oklahoma, we think it is adequate to sustain the verdict.
In Oklahoma, a contract of fire insurance is one of indemnity whereby the insurer agrees to protect the insured against certain stated types of loss to the extent of the coverage stipulated in the policy. When the insured property is totally destroyed, the liability under the policy is the actual cash value thereof at the time of loss. This value is to be determined by relevant factors, including the original cost, replacement cost, the age of the insured property, the condition in which it has been maintained, and the location, use and profit likely to accrue therefrom. American Ins. Co. v. Treasurer, School Dist. No. 87, 10 Cir., 273 F.2d 757; First Nat’l Ins. Co. of America v. Norton, 10 Cir., 238 F.2d 949; Duncan Bros. v. Robinson, Okl., 294 P.2d 822; Rochester American Ins. Co. v. Short, 207 Okl. 669, 252 P.2d 490; National-Ben Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Short, 207 Okl. 673, 252 P.2d 495. See, also, Pinet v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 100 N.H. 346, 126 A.2d 262, 61 A.L.R.2d 706, Anno. 718.
Mrs. Snyder, as the owner, testified that the 4-unit apartment house was constructed in 1950 at a cost of over $22,000; that she had furnished the apartments; that the rentals therefrom varied from $40 to $55 per month without utilities; and that she had redecorated the apartments within the year pri- or to the fire. Photographs were introduced from which a jury could have inferred that the property was kept in good condition. Mrs. Snyder listed all of.the furniture and other personal property which she testified was destroyed by the fire, and gave her estimate of the value of each item at the time of the fire. She further testified that she did not keep an accurate record of the different purchases, but was able to supply the cost of some of the larger items and the approximate date of purchase. The total value of the personalty was fixed at $2,791. A building contractor testified that he inspected the building, and that in his opinion the damage caused by the explosion and fire was so extensive that it could not be repaired, and that the cost of replacement would be $35,000. A witness for the insurance company testified that the building could be repaired at a cost of $5,685.67. There was also evidence that the value of the furniture and other personal property was considerably less than that fixed by Mrs. Snyder. The jury resolved this conflict.
Affirmed.
. It was admitted that Firemen’s Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey had assumed the obligations as insurer and was obligated to hold Eagle Fire Company of New York harmless.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1