I think the problem is that you don't know that a search is going to require going further back than the current owner until you are "knee deep" in it.  In this case, it sounds like a current owner was ordered but it also specified "out of the family with a warranty deed." 

I think it was implied in the contract, that if the current owner acquired title from a family member, a longer search was authorized and the client would have to pay for it accordingly.  We have an understanding with most of our clients that if it is necessary to go beyond the current owner to complete the search, we charge for whatever search we have to do.  Most do not require prior authorization, but if they specifically state on their order that we must call them in that circumstance, we do. 

Though a courtesy call may be polite, I don't think it is required.  By asking for the search to go back to an out-of-the-family transfer with a warranty deed, the client has already expressly required a longer search when necessary.  I think in that case, the "contract" requires the longer search and the client is obligated to pay for it.

If you think about it.... what would have happened if the abstractor had called?  Obviously, the more thorough search would have been approved because the client had already stated what they needed.  On the other hand, if the client cancelled the search because of the additional charge, I think they would still be obligated to pay for the current owner and they still wouldn't have a search that meets their standards.

The problem here is really that the order is not clear.  Do you want a current owner, or a search back to a warranty deed, from a non-family member?  Those terms are often inconsistent.

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE