opinion: MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. v. DIXIE PINE PRODUCTS CO.
  No. 11013.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
  Dec. 27, 1944.
  M. M. Roberts, of Hattiesburg, Miss., for appellant.
  T. J. Wills, of Hattiesburg, Miss., for appellee.
  Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
  HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
  This appeal is from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding damages against the appellant in a suit under an insurance policy issued by it.
  This is the second appearance of this case here. ' In our former opinion, 133 F.2d 583, we held that the evidence adduced upon the first trial made out a case for determination by the jury. *A careful examination of all the evidence at the second trial discloses that the proof upon the issue of liability is substantially identical with that on the prior trial, except that appellee bolstered its case by a further showing that it was not negligent in failing to prevent the explosive vapors from reaching the boilers. Therefore we hold, for the reasons assigned in the former opinion, that the respective motions of the appellant for a directed verdict were properly overruled.
  The record further discloses that there was substantial evidence to justify the damages found by the jury, and the procedural errors assigned are without merit.
  The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
instruction: 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.
choices: bank insurance savings and loan credit union other pension fund other financial institution or investment company unclear