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:
WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY, Appellant, v. Sarah Estelle JACKSON, formerly Sarah Estelle Farris, Appellee.
No. 16275.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
April 26, 1957.
Rehearing Denied June 14, 1957.
Wm. M. Howell, Charles Cook Howell, Jacksonville, Fla., Howell & Kirby, Jacksonvill Fla., of counsel> for appellant,
Jack F. Wayman, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, JONES and! BROWN, Circuit Judges.
JONES, Circuit Judge.
The appellant, Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Society, is a fraternal benefit society. It issues life insurance contracts which it calls certificates rather than policies, for premiums which it calls payments. Roland M. Farris was issued a certificate of insurance in the amount of $3,000 by the Society in 1945. On August 4, 1954, Virgil P. Miller, District Manager of the Society, called at the Farris home and talked about an educa- ,. , . ,¿Y tional insurance certificate lor the young son of Farris and his wife. This conversation being concluded, Miller discussed with Farris the need of the latter for additional insurance. An application was signed and a Preferred Risk Whole y-< i • r* i / L, • "u Life Certificate (which is substantially the same as an ordinary life policy, issued by a life insurance company) for .$2,000, with a twenty-year term benefit rider in the amount of $3,000 attached, was later issued and delivered to Farris. Farris died on December 23, 1954, of heart failure. Farris had a rheumatic heart disease dating back at least as far as November 1, 1948. The Society de-dined to make payment of the amount of the Certificate and tendered the amount of the payments which Farris had made. The tender was refused. His widow, Sarah Estelle Farris brought suit on the - Certificate and recovered judgment for $5,000 on the Certificate, $1,000 attorneys’ fees, interest and costs. The Society has appealed. The plaintiff married while the suit was pending and she is before us as the appellee, Sarah Estelle Jackson.
, .. . . , The testimony was m sharp conflict , , , , , ,, as to what was said and done when the , , application for insurance was taken. Miller, the District Manager of the Society, testified that at the time of his meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Farris he had with him the form that was used in applying for insurance when no medical examination was had. Miller, so he testi-tied, asked Farris the questions as they appeared on the form, and the answers of Farris were written down by Miller. The form shows the question, “Have you, within the past ten years, had any mental or bodily disease or infirmity, or have you within that period of time, consulted, bcen attended or examined by a physifaf? If state wbicb> wben, giving *uil Particulars and name of physician, ^rris as noted by Miller, was N°- The form contained the question Are y°u now m sood health to the oest of y°ur k™^edf and beliffj If,not’ ^ve cause _ Mifier recorded Farris an- ” as bemS .Jes The form con-tamed a request that the applicant Give „ , , name and address of your personal phy- “ ■ Fa(rJls JSP™Se’ *^5“ by JÜ1Jas None ■ Jbe application containfd tbe ^presentation that I have ffd each of fo/egoing questions and the answers thereto, and represent that _ . . ^ „ fch °Jsald Jfu11’ complete and true whether written by my own hand or The a^wers to the questions quoted wefe untraf; JlUer sald Jat F“™ sJJed “ atlon J blank °n Yhlcb Miller, after returning to his office, typed m tbe answers as given to lum by Far- ™ and sJntQthe application to the home office of the Society in 0maha‘
The testimony of the widow of Farris, ^be beneficiary named in the certificate, was mucb different from that given by Miller- Her stOTy was tbat Miller save Farris the card of the doctor who was the examining physician for the Society. Farris stated that he had a rheumatic heart condition for which he had been treated some years before but he then felt fme. Miller stated he would put it through without a medical examination.
In addition to the recital that the applicant had read the questions and an- ,. ,. , . . ,, „ , swers, the application contained the fol- . . lowing provision:
_ ”1 have read each of the forego3n£ Questions and the answers there-3'°> and represent tbat each of said answers is full, complete and true, whether written by my own hand or no3:’
“All statements purporting to be made by the applicant shall be deemed representations and not warranties.
“I further agree that no statement or information given by or to any person soliciting or taking this application, or by or to any other person, nor any knowledge possessed by any such person, shall be binding on this Society or in any manner affect its liability unless such statement or information be presented in writing to the Medical Director of said Society at the Home Office prior to the issu- . ance of said benefit certificate, and agree that there shall be no liability on the part of the Society for the payment of benefits unless the applicant shall have made at least one monthly payment to the Society for the benefit applied for, and unless this application shall have been approved by the Medical Director of the Society.
^ The certificate contained, on the outer-fold, this notice:
important
“No Camp or officer thereof nor any employee or representative of this Society has authority to waive any of the conditions of this benefit certificate or of the Constitution, Laws and By-Laws of the Society.”
The certificate was issued “in consideration of the application therefor, includ,ing the statement of insurability.” A photostat copy of the application was attached to and made a part of the certificate. In Section 127 of the Society’s Constitution and Laws it is provided:
“Sec. 127. (a) No employee, state manager, field man or agent of the Society or the Sovereign Camp, Head Camp or of any Camp, has the power, right or authority to waive any of the conditions upon which beneficiary certificates are issued, or to change, vary or waive any of the provisions of this Constitution or these Laws, nor shall any custom or course of dealing on the.part of any Financial Secretary or of any Camp or any number of Camps— with or without the knowledge of any officer of the Society — have the effect of so changing, modifying, waiving or foregoing such laws or requirements. Each and every beneficiary certificate is issued only upon the conditions stated in and sub-jeet to the Constitution and Laws, then in force or thereafter enacted, nor shall the knowledge or act of any employee of this Society constitute a waiver of the provisions of these laws by the Society or an es-toppel of this Society,
«(b) The Articles of Incorpora-tíon> the Constitution, Laws and ByLaws of the Society> the application and medieal examinatioil) or decIaration of insurability, if accepted in lieu of medical examination, signed by tbe applicant> and all amend_ ments to each thereof) the benefit certificate, and any riders attached thereto or endorsements made thereon by the President or Secretary of the Society shall constitute the contract between the Society and the member.”
The widow beneficiary of Farris brought suit in the Florida court and the Society removed to the Federal district court because of diversity. The plaintiff> in ber complaint alleged the issuance of the certificate, the death of the insured and the denial of liability by the Society. The Society answered asserting that the certificate was not in effect because of false statements and representations of the insured in his application. To this the plaintiff filed a reply asserting that the Society had waived and was estopped to assert the defense set forth in its answer because, it was alleged, full disclosures were made by the insured to Miller, the Society’s authorized agent, and no false answers were given nor were any misrepresentations made, that premiums were accepted with knowledge of the insured’s heart condition. At this juncture the Society moved, under Rule 15 Fed.Rules Civ. Proc., 28 U.S.C.A., to file an additional defense, inconsistent with its original defense as is permitted by Rule 8 Fed. Rules Civ.Proe. Leave of court being given, the additional defense was filed and by it the Society asserted that Far-ris told Miller of the rheumatic heart condition and Miller processed the application without medical examination, all of which was fraud, collusion and concealment on the part of the insured barring recovery. When all of the evidence had been presented the court declined to submit the Society's additional defense to the jury.
The verdict of the jury having re~ solved the fact issues against the Society, it urges that reversal is required on three grounds; first, that the knowledge of the Society's agent Miller of the heart condition and medical history of the in~ sured Farris is not attributable to the Society; second, that Miller and Farris perpetrated a fraud on the Society; and third, that attorneys' fees are not recoverable in Florida against a fraternal benefit society.
If the appellant were an insurance company we would have no doubt but that an affirmance would be required by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Florida. It has said:
"The law in this state is that when the agent of an insurance company fills in an application for insurance, his act in doing so is the act of the company. If the applicant fully states the facts to the agent at the time and the agent writes the answers incorrectly or contrary to the facts stated by the applicant, the company is estopped from making a defense in an action on the policy by reason of the false answer." Stix v. Continental Assur. Co., 147 Fla. 783, 3 So.2d 703, 704.
In the Stix case the court followed Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Williams, 123 Fla. 560, 167 So. 12, and distinguished Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hilton-Green, 241 U.S. 613, 36 S.Ct. 676, 60 L.Ed. 1202. The rule was again announced in this language:
"In this jurisdiction it is well settled that if the insured gives truthful answers to questions contained in the application for life insurance, and the company's agent, either through fraud or mistake, inserts answers in the application which do not accord with the information given, the insurer cannot insist on breach of warranty, but is estopped from making such defense." Colum-bian National Life Ins. Co. v. Lani-gan, 154 Fla. 760, 19 So.2d 67, 70.
In a later case, Gulf Life insurance Co~ v. Ferguson, Fla., 59 So.2d 371, procedural questions controlled the decision.
The appellant contends that as it is a fraternal benefit society the rule announced by the Stix case and those following it does not apply. By statute it is provided in Florida
"Except as provided in this chapter, [Fia.Stat.Ann. ch. 637], such societies shall be governed by this chapter, and shall be exempt from all provisions of the insurance laws of this state, not only in governmental relations with the state, but for every other purpose, and no law hereafter enacted shall apply to them, unless they be expressly designated therein." Fla.Stat.Ann. § 637.11.
The Society's Constitution and Laws, quoted supra, deny to its employees, state managers, field men and agents any power to waive any of the conditions upon which beneficiary certificates are issued. So also it is provided that the Articles of Incorporation, Constitution, Laws and By-Laws, the application and medical examination, or declaration of insurability, if accepted in lieu of medical examination, and the certificate shall constitute the contract. The statute authorizes such provisions. The statute declares:
"The constitution and laws of the society may provide that no subordinate body, nor any of its subordinate officers or members shall have the power or authority to waive any of the provisions of the laws and constitution of the society, and the same shall be binding on the society and each and every member thereof and on all the beneficiaries of members.” Fla.Stat.Ann. § 637.30.
The statute is valid. Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias, etc. v. Moore, 120 Fla. 761, 163 So. 108; Grand Lodge, Knights of Pythias of North America v. McKee, 5 Cir., 1938, 95 F.2d 474.
But when we reach the conclu.sion that Miller, as the Society’s agent, had no right to waive any provision of the Society’s Constitution and Laws, we have not answered the question which is posed by the record. Farris signed a blank form. He gave, or at least the verdict of the jury requires us to assume that he gave Miller the correct answers. It was not shown that he knew or had reason to believe that false answers were to be written in over his signature. The knowledge of Miller, the agent, of the true facts and of the falsity of the answers, is imputed to his principal, the Society. Columbian National Life Ins. Co. v. Lanigan, supra. The Medical Director of the Society testified that all applications were delivered to and exam-med by him, and if he found the applicant to be an acceptable insurance risk he returned the application to the Secretary of the Society for the issuance of a certificate. It is the Society which, having the imputed knowledge of the true facts and of the falsity of the application, waives the requirements and assumes the obligations of the insurance contract. It is the Society which is es-topped to assert a defense by reason of the false answers. Stix v. Continental Assurance Co., supra. The district court properly excluded the fraud issue from consideration of the jury.
The jury’s verdict and the court’s judgment included an attorneys’ fee of $1,000. The appellant takes the position that no attorneys’ fees are allowable against a fraternal benefit society, and so contending it points again to the statute which exempts such societies from all provisions of the insurance laws except as provided in Chapter 637, and that no law thereafter enacted shall apply to them unless they be expressly named therein. The general statutory law of Florida dealing with insurance contains a provision that:
“Upon the rendition of a judgment or decree by any of the courts of this state against any insurer in favor of the beneficiary under any policy or contract of insurance ex-futed h? such “surer, there shall . °r decreed against such insurer, and in favor of the beneficiaiy named in said policy or contract ® insurance, a reasonable ^ sum as ^ees or compensation for his attorne^s. or solicitors prosecuting the SU1^ m which the recovery is had.
“The amount to be recovered for fees and compensation for attorneys and solicitors against such insurer shall be ascertained and fixed by the court in chancery cases or a jury in common law actions, from testimony adduced for that purpose, and shall be included in the judgment or decree rendered in such cases.” Fla. Stat.Ann. § 625.08.
Chapter 637 had itg origin in a compre_ hensive act pagsed in 191B Lawg of Florida, Actg 1915, ch. 6970. At that time attorneys> feeg might be awarded againgt «any Hfe or fire ingurance com_ pany». Lawg of Florida¡ Actg of lg93 Cb. 4173. In 1917 thig wag amended so ag to permit recovery of attorneys’ fees againgt »any pers company; eorpora. tíon> co-partnership, association, fraternal benefit societieg or others » Laws of Fiorida> Acts of 1917 ch. 7295. In tbe statutory revision of 1941 the quoted wordg inaerted in 1917 were deleted and for them wag substituted “any insurer”, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1941, Ch. 20719. “Insurer” is defined as “any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation or other organization or group who issue, or enter into, contracts or policies of insuranee, indemnity or surety with another who is called the insured.” Fla.Stat. Ann. § 625.01(6). This definition, adopted by the 1941 compilation, does not ex-pressly designate fraternal benefit societies and, it being subsequent to the 1915 enactment, they would be excluded from it. The 1915 statutes, as amended in the interim, were incorporated in the 1941 compilation. In such a case we look behind the revision to ascertain which act of the legislature is expressive of its intent. See Lykes Bros. v. Bigby, 155 Fla. 580, 21 So.2d 37. We are of the opinion that the statutory provision authorizing recovery of attorneys’ fees does not apply to actions against fraternal benefit societies. In the absence of statutory authority or a contract provision attorneys fees cannot be recovered, 46 C.J.S. Insurance § 1405b, p. 712.
As to that part of the judgment for the amount of the certificate with interest thereon and costs, it is affirmed; as to that part providing for attorneys’ fees it is reversed. One-sixth of the costs of the appeal shall be taxed to the appellee and the remainder to the appellant.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part,

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