Yep, the Ohio rule, or something close to it, is the rule most everywhere I believe.  The "Kansas Rule" is definitely an outlier.  There, the fact that there is no privity of contract between the searcher and whoever is suing does not prevent liability, because the person suing is not suing under a contract, they are suing under a negligence theory.  Privity of contract is not necessary for negligence.  All that's necessary is for the court to find that the searcher have some duty of care to the parties to the underlying transaction, which they have done in Kansas. 

Finding a duty of care owed by a searcher to a buyer in a transaction is not entirely farfetched-- when you do a search, you probably are aware that it's going to be used for some sort of real estate transaction, and you'd know that if you missed something, there'd be a possibility that a buyer could suffer a loss, and perhaps even losses beyond what their title insurance will cover.  The buyer's loss is therefore foreseeable to the negligent searcher, and foreseeability of a loss by a defendant is an important step toward negligence liability.  But I think the Ohio rule is the better rule, for other reasons.