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 "natural persons". 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:
Herbert H. HARRIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OLYMPUS TERMINALS & TRANSPORT CO., INC., et al., Defendants, Travelers Insurance Co., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 73-4041.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 31, 1975.
William P. Rutledge, Lafayette, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Fred E. Salley, Edward J. Koehl, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Before RIVES, WISDOM and COLEMAN, Circuit Judges.
RIVES, Circuit Judge:
Decision of this appeal turns on the construction of an exclusionary provision in a “Workmen’s Compensation and Employers’ Liability Policy” issued by Travelers to Olympus.
Harris, a shore-based barge-cleaner employee of Olympus, sued Olympus and Travelers to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an accident that occurred when Harris fell into the cargo compartment of a barge which his employer Olympus was cleaning. Harris claimed that he fell because of the unseaworthiness of the barge, and that Olympus was liable to him under Seas Shipping Co., Inc. v. Sierachi, 1946, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099, and under Eskine v. United Barge Company, 5 Cir. 1973, 484 F.2d 1194. Travelers was sued directly as the insurer of Olympus’ liability for unseaworthiness. Olympus and Travelers pleaded the general issue and denied that Travelers insured Olympus against liability for unseaworthiness.
The pertinent policy provisions are the Insuring Agreements and Exclusion (f), which read as follows:
“INSURING AGREEMENTS
“1. Coverage A — Workmen’s Compensation
“To pay promptly when due all compensation and other benefits required of the insured by the workmen’s compensation law.
“Coverage B — Employers’ Liability “To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury by accident or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom,
“(a) sustained in the United States of America, its territories or possessions, or Canada by any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured either in operations in a state designated in Item 3 of the declarations or in operations necessary or incidental thereto, or
“EXCLUSIONS
“This policy does not apply:
“(f) under Coverage B, to any obligation for which the insured or any carrier as his insurer may be held liable under the workmen’s compensation or occupational disease law of a state designated in Item 3 of the declarations, any other workmen’s compensation or occupational disease law, any unemployment compensation or disability benefits law, or under any similar law.” (R. p. 46)
The district court granted Travelers’ motion for summary judgment as to claims other than those for workmen’s compensation made by Harris against Travelers directly, holding: “ . even if plaintiff can maintain an action against his employer, Olympus, as owner pro hac vice of the barge, the insurance contract in the record excludes direct recovery by plaintiff against his employer’s insurer, The Travelers Insurance Company, as per Coverage B and Exclusion . . . (f).” (Rec. 57, 58.)
Final judgment was entered pursuant to Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. This appeal is from that judgment. Olympus and Travelers concede: “Appellant’s point is well taken that were it not for Exclusion (f) the Travelers’ policy would provide coverage to Olympus for Mr. Harris’ direct claim for a breach of the warranty of seaworthiness.” (Brief p. 7.)
Two other judges of the same district court have construed Exclusion (f) differently from its construction in this case. In Brickley v. Offshore Shipyard, Inc., E.D.La.1967, 270 F.Supp. 985, 989, Judge Heebe wrote: “We find no reasonable basis to hold that the words of Exclusion F are intended to remove from coverage a claim for damages by an injured employee merely because that employee might also have a claim for compensation.” In Voisin v. Ocean Protein, Inc., E.D.La.1970, 321 F.Supp. 173, 176, Judge Cassibry commented on and followed the holding in the Brickley case. Likewise, the Ninth Circuit reached the same conclusion. Standard Dry Kiln Co. v. Bituminous Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 9 Cir. 1973, 479 F.2d 427, 431.
In Parfait v. Jahncke Service, Inc., 5 Cir. 1973, 484 F.2d 296, 308, Judge Thornberry wrote for this Circuit: “If an exclusion is to take away what the insuring language provides, it must do so in unmistakably clear terms.” In our opinion, Exclusion (f) does not meet that test.
In Garcia v. Queen, Ltd., 5 Cir. 1973, 487 F.2d 625, 629, this Circuit held that a like Part B of an insurance policy provided coverage for damages sought under maritime theories of recovery. That holding demonstrates the propriety of concession that Clause B in this case should be construed to provide coverage were it not for Exclusion (f). We hold that Exclusion (f) simply does not apply. The judgment is therefore reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1