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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
FOX-KNAPP, INC., and Cable Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 353, Docket 89-7505.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Nov. 16, 1989.
Decided Dec. 22, 1989.
Henry J. Bergman (Bachner, Tally, Pole-voy & Misher, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
James J. Taylor (Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, FEINBERG and MESKILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal raises the question whether, under New York law, certain actions taken by an insurance company requiring the insured claimants to produce documents and submit to an examination under oath after the expiration of the period provided in the policy for the filing of lawsuits constitute a waiver of the company’s limitations defense. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Haight, J., granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on plaintiffs’ late filing of the lawsuit and dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint seeking recovery under an insurance policy for property damage and business interruption losses caused by a fire in plaintiffs’ business premises.
We conclude that the defendant did not waive its limitations defense, as a matter of law, by putting plaintiffs to the expense of submitting to examination under oath and producing documents after expiration of the limitations period.
We affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by Judge Haight in his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 14, 1989, filed April 19, 1989, and reported at 725 F.Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y.1989).

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 8