The phrase 'would have thought ... might result' in a known circumstances exclusion clause in a professional indemnity policy requires that a reasonable person in the insured's professional position would have believed as a realistic possibility that the circumstances might result in an allegation — not merely that the person fleetingly considered a remote possibility. The insured's actual state of mind may be considered as a starting point for the objective inquiry, provided the ultimate question remains what a reasonable person would have thought. Where the phrase is ambiguous, it is to be construed contra proferentem against the insurer.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.