Indeed.  Yet, with all due respect to the author of the article, I think that my earlier assessment regarding this matter may be correct.  I base this on clients who are having properties researched which appear to have fallen into this category of "never researched".  From five lots around California, I am seeing that the title company records are flawed in any manner of two or three ways:

1.  Records wherein the title chain by arb attaches to the wrong property and thereby contains matters which do not affect the subject lot.  I am afraid that the computer auto-populates policy fields and the minimum wage temps simply hit "send" to the client without having the interest or knowledge to double-check the accuracy of the data.

2.  Records wherein the arb by the Joint Plant Number pulls up a chain of title on a parallel lot because the internal JPN maps don't match the county's public APN maps due to traditional mapping changes made internally by the joint plant system.  This has the same effect as #1 above, but is caused by different circumstances.

3.  Title work done overseas is often returned as incomplete by American workers over a dozen times.  The rate at which some of these uncaught errors get through to the client also contributes to the perception that the title research was not in fact done. 

  In each case, the computer did the title work, whether here or overseas.  With no  trained title staff, the work is passed through without checks and balances in place.  This is effectively the same as not doing a title search, so I can understand the nature of the claim and sympathize with it.  This is also why I suggest that an independent agent should audit the system to uncover the systemic errors of this sort that contribute to a statistically probable percentage of these large claims.  Seems reasonable to me.