Hey Kevin,

Thank you.  I guess what I should have said is that the contract provides the duty for the negligence claim.  I do see that the third party's foreseeable reliance on the search could be sufficient to establish that duty. However, there is one case in Ohio, that I am aware of, that held an abstractor had no duty to the client of their title company client. It was a rather nice ruling for us here in Ohio.

I actually have a Torts mid-term tonight, part of which is "duties owed to third parties."  Law school seems to be getting tougher.  The intentional torts were rather simple, negligence is a lot more complicated; too many gray areas.  We haven't discussed negligent misrepresentation yet... more to look forward to.

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE