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)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
COLLIDOTRONICS, INC., Keystate Insurance Agency, Inc., Harry Ostroff, Edward I. Krensel and Louis H. Levitt, Appellants, v. The STUYVESANT INSURANCE COMPANY, Staff Adjusters Corporation and General Acceptance Corporation.
No. 17635.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued July 15, 1969.
Filed Aug. 14, 1969.
Carl Mazzocone, Sheer & Mazzocone, Philadelphia, Pa. (Lynwood F. Blount, Louis H. Levitt, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.
Robert M. Landis, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa. (B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa,, on the brief), for appellees.
Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and GANEY, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
The District Court dismissed,Count 1 of the plaintiffs’ Complaint as well as its counterclaim and granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to the three other counts of the Complaint.
On this appeal the plaintiffs challenge only the summary judgments entered. They urge that the District Court applied erroneous legal standards in making its disposition, and further, that existence of genuine issues as to material facts precluded entry of summary judgments on the three concerned counts of the Complaint.
On review of the record we cannot subscribe to the plaintiffs’ contentions which are exhaustively considered and decided in the District Court’s Opinion, reported at 290 F.Supp. 978 (E.D.Pa. 1968).
The Order of the District Court, dated and filed October 14, 1968, will be affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 9