Obviously you're misstating the scope of liability - but even so, you still have to meet licensing requirements and just because you're not liable for money damages doesn't mean you can operate a business, much less a successful one.
But an inspector's job isn't really to guarantee to the home buyer that the house is defect-free (thus obligating the inspector to pay to rehabilitate any such defects). I think you should think about what that would mean if it were the reality - home inspections would cost significantly more, maybe to degrees of ten.
Do you really think an $500 home inspection should open the inspector to have to buy any defects that he misses? It just can't be that way. Inspectors are allowed to limit their liability in contract and they should be held to a standard of reasonable inspector - not error-free.
That's why it is really on the buyer to choose a well-regarded inspector and engage experts for any areas of concern.