— that is, where an attorney is aware that he committed a procedural error that resulted in an unfavorable outcome — there is no triable question with respect to a lawyer’s duty to inform his insurer of the potential claim. See Koransky, Bouwer & Poracky, P.C. v. Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co., 712 F.3d 336, 343-44 (7th Cir.2013) (concluding as a matter of law that a law firm whose associate had failed to deliver an executed sales contract to the seller, jeopardizing the sale, was on notice of a potential malpractice claim); Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp. v. Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, 793 F.Supp.2d 399, 411 (D.D.C.2011) (“[T]he dismissal of a lawsuit because of attorney error would clearly put a lawyer on notice of the possibility of a malpractice claim.”); Ross, 420 B.R. at 46, 49-50 (<HOLDING>). Paulson & Nace points out that Virginia’s
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 motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient 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 that notice of judgment was insufficient