## Facts

- Loren Snyder sought to purchase a wheat farm and retained real-estate agent Jeremy Hayek, employed by ERA The Property Exchange, Inc.
- The farm was owned by O.W. and Margaret Lovercheck and listed through their agent/son, Ron Lovercheck, doing business as Bear Mountain Land Company.
- Snyder inspected the farm multiple times and raised concerns about rye (an invasive weed) in the wheat fields.
- Snyder alleged Ron stated the farm had rye but it was not serious, was limited in area, and was controllable; Ron relayed a similar assessment from the prior owner.
- At the time of negotiations, the crop had been planted but was not yet visible, limiting observation of the rye’s extent.
- Snyder signed a written purchase agreement containing an “as is” provision, an integration clause, and an express disclaimer that the buyer was not relying on any seller or agent representations not contained in the contract.
- After closing, Snyder claimed the rye infestation was far more extensive than he believed and reduced the farm’s value.
- Snyder sued the sellers and their listing agent for breach of contract and negligent/fraudulent misrepresentation, and sued his own agent and broker for professional negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether an express contractual disclaimer of reliance and related “as is”/integration provisions barred Snyder’s negligent misrepresentation claim as a matter of law.
2. Whether Snyder produced sufficient evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation to survive summary judgment despite the disclaimer provisions.
3. Whether Snyder presented evidence supporting real-estate professional negligence claims against his own agent (Hayek) and broker (ERA).
4. Whether the sellers were entitled to attorney’s fees and whether computerized legal-research charges could be taxed as costs.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for all defendants on Snyder’s substantive claims.
- The court held the nonreliance disclaimer defeated the justifiable-reliance element required for negligent misrepresentation.
- The court held Snyder’s evidence did not establish fraudulent misrepresentation because it did not show knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for Hayek and ERA, concluding the record did not support a breach of professional duty under the circumstances.
- The court vacated and remanded the attorney’s-fee award because the contract authorized fees only upon breach or default and the district court had not made that predicate finding.
- The court vacated the award of Westlaw research expenses as taxable costs, treating such expenses as part of attorney’s fees rather than recoverable costs.

## Legal Principles

- Justifiable reliance is an element of negligent misrepresentation; an explicit, signed nonreliance clause can negate justifiable reliance and bar the claim.
- “As is” and integration/nonreliance provisions in an arm’s-length real-estate contract generally allocate risk of undisclosed conditions to the buyer absent an express contractual warranty.
- Contractual nonreliance provisions do not automatically defeat a fraud claim, but a plaintiff must present evidence of scienter (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) to proceed.
- Contract-based fee shifting is limited by the contract’s triggering conditions; a prevailing-party award may require an express finding of breach or default when the clause so provides.
- Computerized legal-research charges are not taxable “costs” and are recoverable, if at all, as part of attorney’s fees.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the purchase agreement’s express nonreliance and “as is” terms to defeat negligence-based misrepresentation and affirmed summary judgment for the sellers, the listing agent, and the buyer’s agent and broker, while vacating Westlaw “costs” and remanding the contractual attorney’s-fee award for reconsideration under the contract’s breach/default requirement.


Snyder v. Lovercheck, 992 P.2d 1079 (Wyo. 1999)