Excellent analysis, Bobbi. That is precisely why I left abstracting, and decided to concentrate on closings...too much liability and aggravation with abstracting and  title companies, insuffient time to complete a thorough search and not enough money.

I remember the days when you were given a week to complete a full search and three days to complete a partial. Fees were negotiated at the time you accepted the title company as a client, and were paid accordingly ...rather than being negotiated on every new order.

I think the amount of damages attributale to the abstractor and examiner would depend upon the cause of action under which they were sued. If I were representing the plaintiff I would draft the complaint to include both parties as defendants, and bring an action alleging both negligence and contract breach.

I am certain that there would be cross claims asserted between the defendants. If they cross claimed under negligence and if Massachusetts is a comparative negligence state the apportionment of damages between them would be determined by the jury comensurate with  the the percentage of negligence ascribed to each.

If their cross claims include contract breach something different in the apportionment of damages between them may result. Performance of contractual duties with reasonable care is an implied term of every contract in Connecticut.

The defendants could also implead each other as third party defendants in the event that one or the other had not been named as a defendant by the plaintiff...or file a motion to to cite the other defendant in as a co-defendant in order to file a cross claim. In Connecticut the preferable procedure would be the latter because there is wider latitude to recover damages under a cross claim that under a third party complaint