Rob, in my layman's opinion, the key difference between the Fidelity National and Express Financial cases is that in the former, there was a written understanding vis-a-vis the amount and scope of liability of the abstractor, whereas in the latter, the limit was shown only on the abstractor's invoice and no written understanding between the parties existed or was ever introduced.

This is precisely why I get everything in writing.  It's known in professional circles as "CMA".  It's also a very good argument for taking great care in filling out a potential client's "vendor information sheet".  One may someday find one's fanny nailed to the wall with a mere ballpoint pen.

Regards,
Scott