claimed that he was “verbally assaulted” by Rodolfo Martinez who was in charge of the place where the equipment was being kept. Meran testified that Rodolfo Martinez gave instructions to his subordinates “to impede at all cost the functioning and movement of the machinery,” id., and that, according to Meran, it was clear that “even with a valid legal order ruling in [his] favor that the equipment is to come back, [IMSA] still couldn’t get the equipment, and [he] questioned how efficient the legal proceedings in Mexico would be for [IMSA].” App. at 141. Ample authority exists for the proposition that such “all-risk” language (as that which exists in the present case) covers conversion. See, e.g., Buckeye Cellulose Corp. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 643 F.Supp. 1030, 1036 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (<HOLDING>); Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Dayco Corp., 620
holding that a partys responsibility for damage from any cause included damage cause by the indemnitee recognizing that a provision insuring against all risks of physical loss or damage from external cause  would provide coverage against conversion holding that allegations of intentional acts causing injury resulted in the complaint falling outside the coverage of an insurance policy insuring only against accidental injury holding that contract language referring to amount of loss authorized appraiser only to place dollar value on loss and not to determine cause of damage or other coverage issues holding that all risks coverage extends only when the loss is fortuitous