opinion: Raleigh W. ANDREWS, Appellee, v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
  No. 11890.
  United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
  Argued March. 6, 1968.
  Decided March 18, 1968.
  W. Laurier O’Farrell and Saunders M. Bridges, Florence, S. C., for appellant.
  D. Kenneth Baker and James P. Mozingo, III, Darlington, S. C. (Philip H. Arrowsmith, Florence, S. C., on brief), for appellee.
  Before BOREMAN, CRAVEN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  This is an appeal from a decision of the District Court for the District of South Carolina, Florence Division, in a trial without a jury. The court held the defendant insurance company liable for the payment of judgments obtained against its insured over and above the $10,000.00 limit of policy coverage because of the company’s negligence and bad faith in failing to accept repeated offers to settle tort claims against the named insured within the policy limit.
  We affirm on the opinion of the district court.
  Affirmed.
  . Andrews v. Central Surety Insurance Company, 271 F.Supp. 814 (D.S.C.1967). The action below was brought against the above-named company and Commercial Union Insurance Company. At time of trial Central had merged with Commercial Union, leaving only one company as the defendant.
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