Here is my questions for them: "What took you so long!?"  Nobody should be accepting searches with a disclaimer, in my opinion.  Abstractors have a responsibility to provide accurate reliable information.  If they do not do that, they should be liable for the damages they cause. 

One of the biggest problems we have in this industry is that there are too many unqualified "searchers" who are causing claims.  Those claims affect the E&O rates for the rest of us.  As I have explained before, even if the "searcher" doesn't have E&O, or if they disclaim their liability, when they make a mistake the client can file a claim on their policy.  So basically, we are all subsidizing the worst abstractors through higher E&O premiums.

If these "searchers" can disclaim their liability, they never pay the price for their incompetence and they remain in business to continue undercutting the prices of reputable abstractors.  We should all be happy to see company's refusing to work with "searchers" who disclaim their liability.  Maybe if a few of them get sued, they will leave the business and those of us who know what we are doing and stand behind our work will be able to charge what the searches are worth.

We don't use disclaimers.  We have a $1 million E&O policy and we have never had to file a claim (...knock on wood).  I don't see a problem with eliminating the disclaimers if you are a good abstractor and have E&O insurance.

That being said... there are a few other points I would like to make.  First, if this company is having "more than one loss" caused by a "few" abstractors, why are they still using those abstractors?  Find someone who knows what they are doing!  Second, you get what you pay for.  If clients wouldn't insist on rock-bottom prices from their searchers and instead pay a good abstractor what they are worth, they could probably reduce their claims exposure.

I have some more thoughts on this topic which are much more broad.  I think I will do some research for a blog.

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE