could have reasonably foreseen a malpractice claim is an objective test that can be determined as a matter of law.”); Colliers Lanard & Axilbund v. Lloyds of London, 458 F.3d 231, 237 (3d Cir.2006) (“[W]e conclude that this part of the exclusion gives rise to an objective test: whether a reasonable professional in the insured’s position might expect a claim or suit to result.”). Moreover, “the question whether the insured has acted reasonably becomes a question of law only when reasonable persons can draw but one inference .... ” Travelers, 770 A.2d at 991 (citing Starks v. North East Ins. Co., 408 A.2d 980, 982 (D.C.1979)). Here, the dismissal of a lawsuit because of attorney error would clearly put a lawyer on notice of the possibility of a malpractice claim. See Ross, 420 B.R. at 55 (<HOLDING>); Cameron v. Washington Metro. Area Transit
holding failure to object to conditioning instructions waived error arising from the jurys failure to answer question when answer could not be implied and that lack of objection waived right to new trial to have jury answer questions holding that despite failure to appear for trial default could not be entered without notice to defendant holding on summary judgment that an attorney who failed to timely file an answer leading to a default judgment was on notice that a malpractice claim might be filed against him holding a law firms failure to file a timely answer resulting in a default judgment could reasonably be expected to form the basis for a malpractice claim holding that a default judgment could not be rendered after defendants counsel telephoned plaintiffs attorney to request additional time within which to answer