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:
FIREMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, a corporation, Appellant, v. William A. CRAIGIE and Bette P. Craigie, Appellees.
No. 16805.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Feb. 6, 1962.
Jerome H. Torshen, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. John P. Gorman, Clausen, Hirsh, Miller & Gorman, Chicago, Ill., Frank X. Cronan, Carroll, Thorson, Anderson & Cronan, Minneapolis, Minn., were with him on the brief.
Kenneth W. Green, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee. O’Connor, Green, Thomas & Walters, Minneapolis, Minn., were with him on the brief.
Before SANBORN, VAN OOSTER-HOUT and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges.
SANBORN, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by Firemen’s Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey (hereinafter called “Firemen’s”), from a judgment of $96,500 and interest based upon a jury verdict in an action brought by William A. and Bette P. Craigie, as plaintiffs, upon a Minnesota fire insurance policy issued by Firemen’s to them, effective December 22, 1959. The policy was procured for the plaintiffs by Wilbur E. Bennington, of Minneapolis, a licensed fire insurance agent, who had been requested in the early part of December, 1959, by William A. Craigie to obtain a fire insurance policy such as that in suit. Bennington solicited the Brandt Insurance Agency, of Minneapolis, an agent for Firemen’s, to obtain the policy, and represented that the insurable value of the Craigies’ dwelling was $85,000.
Firemen’s issued the policy without making any examination or inspection of the insured property or any inquiry about the risk Firemen’s was assuming. The policy covered the dwelling against loss by fire for $75,000, its contents for $30,000, and additional living expenses, due to a fire, for $15,000. The dwelling and its contents were completely destroyed by fire on December 24, 1959, two days after the effective date of the policy. Firemen’s denied liability for the loss. The Craigies in their complaint demanded judgment for $120,000. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship.
Firemen’s in its amended answer alleged that the plaintiffs had concealed and had misrepresented material facts in the procurement of the policy, and had made false and fraudulent representations in their sworn proofs of loss to the effect (1) that they did not know the cause of the fire, (2) that there was no other insurance, and (3) that the loss of personal property was in excess of $35,-000. Firemen’s alleged that the Craigies had deliberately set fire to and burned the insured dwelling and contents.
The controverted fact issues were submitted to the jury and resolved by it adversely to Firemen’s.
After the trial, Firemen’s made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. Judge Devitt, before whom the case was tried, in denying Firemen’s motion wrote a comprehensive opinion, reported in 191 F.Supp. 710, stating accurately, adequately and in much detail all of the essential facts, as well as the questions of law which were raised, and what he conceived to be the applicable Minnesota law. No useful purpose can be served by a mere repetition or restatement of what Judge Devitt has covered in his opinion.
The questions raised and argued on this appeal are: (1) whether the court erred in instructing the jury that Bennington, at whose solicitation the Brandt Insurance Agency procured the fire insurance policy in suit to be written, was to be regarded as the agent of Firemen’s in connection with the issuance of the policy; and (2) whether the “court erred in receiving the second verdict of the jury and in refusing to grant a new trial in the light of the confused and confusing actions of the jury.” Both of these questions were considered and ruled upon by Judge Devitt in his opinion. He held that Bennington, under applicable statutory Minnesota law, could not be found or held to be the agent of the Craigies.
The Minnesota “valued policy” statute, M.S.A. § 65.05, requires a fire insurance company, after examining a structure to be insured, to fix the insurable value and to state the amount of it in the policy, and, “in the absence of intentional fraud on the part of the insured,” to pay that amount in case of a total loss. That statute also provides: “Every person who solicits insurance and procures an application therefor shall be held to be the agent of the party afterward issuing insurance thereon or a renewal thereof.” Judge Devitt held that the statute made Bennington the agent of Firemen’s and that it “in effect requires fire insurance companies at their peril to check and inspect buildings and structures before issuing a policy.” (Page 713 of 191 F.Supp.)
To the case of Dose v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 206 Minn. 114, 287 N.W. 866, cited and relied upon by Judge Devitt, there can be added the case of Nathan v. St. Paul Mutual Insurance Co., 243 Minn. 430, 432-437, 68 N.W.2d 385, 387-390, which indicates that, under the Minnesota “valued policy” statute, a fire insurance company is charged with knowledge of all matters material to the risk which are reasonably discoverable upon a proper examination of an insured structure. It seems apparent that a fire insurance company operating in Minnesota may not with impunity indulge in improvident underwriting.
There is nothing that indicates to our minds that there was either error or prejudice in the way Judge Devitt handled the problem created by the jury’s first returning a verdict for $75,000, which he did not accept and which obviously could not legally have been sustained. The verdict included no award for the loss of the contents of the house, and nothing for added living expenses caused by the fire. The jury was not discharged. In sending the jurors out to deliberate further, Judge Devitt told them that, under the court’s instructions, they could return either a verdict for Firemen’s or a verdict for the plaintiffs, but that if they returned a verdict for the plaintiffs they must award them not only the $75,000 for the loss of their dwelling but also the reasonable value of its contents plus reasonable added liv ing expenses incurred. After further deliberation, the jury returned the verdict upon which the judgment appealed from was entered.
The reluctance of Firemen’s to accept liability for the fire loss in suit is understandable. The fire bore the earmarks of being of incendiary origin. The house was unquestionably greatly over-insured. The controlling issues, however, were for the jury. If the verdict was erroneous, the error was one of fact attributable to the jury, and not an error of law committed by the court. See and compare, Elzig v. Gudwangen, 8 Cir., 91 F.2d 434, 444.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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: 1