With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — 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

A: holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment
B: 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
C: holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient
D: 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
B.