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)", specifically "financial institution". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
MANUFACTURER’S NATIONAL BANK OF DETROIT, Personal Representative of the Estate of Patrick Murray, M.D., Deceased; Carol Murray, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Colette Murray, Deceased; Loretta Murray, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ERIE COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION, et al., Defendants, Huron Township, Huron Township Board of Trustees, and Robert Boos, Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-3843.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued May 3, 1991.
Decided April 27, 1992.
Michelle A. Thomas (argued), Richard A. Bone, and Sheri B. Cataldo (briefed), Sullivan, Ward, Bone, Tyler, Fiott & Asher, Southfield, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Willis P. Jones, Jr., Sarah A. McHugh (argued and briefed), Jones & Bahret, Toledo, Ohio, and Randal L. Strickler, Prosecutor’s Office for the County of Erie, San-dusky, Ohio, for defendants-appellees.
Before: KENNEDY and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges; and LIVELY, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER
Plaintiffs’ personal representative of the Estate of Patrick Murray, M.D. and Colette Murray, Deceased; Carol Murray and Loretta Murray appealed the summary judgment for defendants Huron Township, Huron Township Board of Trustees and Robert Boos in this action. Because undecided questions of state law governed the outcome of the case, those questions were certified to the Ohio Supreme Court pursuant to Rule XVI of the Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Practice. That Court has now answered those questions in a manner inconsistent with the decision and judgment of the District Court. The judgment of the District Court is therefore REVERSED and the action REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the holding of the Ohio Supreme Court in answer to the certified questions.
The Court is deeply appreciative that the State of Ohio provides this certification procedure. The Ohio Supreme Court’s entry is attached as Exhibit A and the court’s opinion was decided on April 1, 1992. 63 Ohio St.3d 318, 587 N.E.2d 819 (1992).
EXHIBIT A
THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
1992 TERM
To wit: April 1, 1992
Manufacturer’s National Bank of Detroit, etc., et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
Erie County Road Commission et al.;
Huron Township et al., Respondents.
Case No. 91-1302
ENTRY
This cause is pending before the Court on the certification of state law questions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. For the reasons stated in the opinion rendered herein, the Court answers the first certified question and finds that a permanent obstruction to visibility in the right-of-way, which renders the regularly travelled portions of the highway unsafe for the usual and ordinary course of travel, can be a nuisance for which a political subdivision may be liable under R.C. 2744.-02(B)(3). For the reasons stated in the opinion rendered herein, the Court answers the second certified question and finds that where the abutting landowner or occupier uses the highway right-of-way in a manner inconsistent with a highway purpose, and where such usage constitutes an unreasonable hazard to the users of the highway, the landowner or occupier may be liable for damages proximately caused by the improper use of the right-of-way.
THOMAS J. MOYER
Chief Justice

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "financial institution". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
bank
insurance
savings and loan
credit union
other pension fund
other financial institution or investment company
unclear

Answer: 0