Your comparison is a bit of apples to oranges, but going with that analogy, research firms have miscellaneous professional liability insurance and claims are indeed made against them when missed records occur.  Sometimes it is not the lack of due diligence on the part of the abstractor, but a failure in the public records themselves.  Sometimes there is a reasonable expectation that a record should have been  located and it falls to their insurance to make matters right.

This then begs the question as to whether the foreclosure companies are insured to the same levels and being held to account on the same basis.  I'll admit that I'm unaware of such claims.  Furthermore, the scale of loss between an abstractor missing a mechanics lien versus a foreclosure mill kicking a family out of their home, is massively different in every dimension. 

I know that it is not unheard of that a title search claim can be very high, or that such failures can materially contribute to property loss, but this seems far less  frequent or likely than a foreclosure mill specializing in taking property.

I would also  note the important (qualitative) difference between researching public records as an abstractor in order to produce a report and recording matters of public notice on those records.  Clearly the onus is on the party submitting papers for recording to state things accurately and correctly and not to do so in a manner that creates a liability or encumbrance on wrong parties, wrong properties, or in erroneous ways.