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:
Claudie R. LOVLESS, Appellant, v. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Limited, Appellee.
No. 13893.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 28, 1955.
Raymond H. Kierr, New Orleans, La., for appellant.
René H. Himel, Jr., Malcolm W. Monroe, and Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, BORAH, Circuit Judge, and DAWKINS, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
On October 19, 1950, the Tug “Lake-wyn” was operated by Jahncke Service, Inc. for delivering clam shells in the New Basin Canal at New Orleans. Claudie R. Lovless was employed by the company as deckhand on its towboat. About dusk that day he was injured when working aboard the barges which were loaded with shells and were being towed by the tug.
Lovless brought this action jointly against the vessel’s owner and its liability underwriter. His damage suit is based upon the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, and upon the Maritime Law. He claims also maintenance and cure in a second cause of action, under the general Maritime Law. There is diversity of citizenship between all parties. Plaintiff relies on Section 655 of the Louisiana Insurance Code, Title 22, LSA-R.S., to authorize his direct suit against the insurance company.
The insurance policy sued upon is a “standard workmen’s compensation and employers’ liability policy,” in the amount of $15,000.00 to $25,000.00, issued at New Orleans, Louisiana by the Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp., Ltd. to Jahncke Service, Inc. with respect to personal injuries sustained by its employees. The policy contains a maritime endorsement making the damage coverage for employees’ injuries applicable to maritime employment. The insurance company is required to defend the insured and to pay all court costs and expenses. The policy contains the usual provision which precludes payment to anyone until the insured shall have been held liable to pay damages; and it further provides that a state statute shall control over any provision in the insurance policy which is inconsistent with the statute.
The Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd. moved in the trial court for dismissal and for summary judgment as to it, on the grounds that: (1) jurisdiction is lacking because the Jones Act creates no direct action against the underwriter of a seaman’s employer; (2) the Direct Action provision, § 655, of the Louisiana Insurance Code, cannot constitutionally apply to marine insurance because it would infringe upon the exclusive Federal jurisdiction over maritime matters; and (3) the insurance contract excludes liability for maintenance and cure.
The District Court granted the motion for summary judgment on October 3, 1951, and dismissed the action as to the Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., and plaintiff brings this appeal.
Here, urging upon us that, except that, in the Cushing case, there was a limitation of liability proceeding and there is none here, the two cases are in substance the same, appellant insists that the law as decided in that case requires the reversal of the judgment in this one.
We agree that this is so. The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause is remanded for further and not inconsistent proceedings.
. This policy, No. WC-750185, Clause 1 (b), stipulates “to indemnify this employer against loss by reason of the liability imposed upon him by law for damages on account of such injuries to such of said employees as are legally employed wherever such injuries may be sustained within the territorial limits of the United States of America or the Dominion of Canada.”
. This was before the decision of this court, on July 31, 1952, in the case of Cushing v. Maryland Casualty Co., 5 Cir., 198 F.2d 536, reversing the judgment and decision of the district court reported in Cushing v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., D.C., 99 F.Supp. 681.
. Cushing v. Maryland Casualty Co., 5 Cir., 198 F.2d 536; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409, 74 S.Ct. 608, 98 L.Ed. 306.

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: 0