[759]*759OPINION
BURKE, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment holding a real estate broker liable for certain misrepresentations made in the course of a real estate transaction.
A. Facts
On February 3, 1975, David and Linda Ballard purchased a lot with an unfinished dwelling from Josephine, Patricia, and William Ferris. Prior to their purchase, certain representations were allegedly made to the Ballards regarding the adequacy of a well on the property. The purchaser, David Ballard, who had previous experience as a general contractor, attempted to complete the existing well on the property. He installed a pump and piping from the well to the house. The well, however, failed to provide sufficient water. As a result, the Ballards were forced to haul water to their property. They subsequently incurred expenses of $6,935.00 in deepening the well to an adequate level.
Believing themselves the victims of fraudulent misrepresentations, the Ballards sued the sellers, the broker (Bevins), and an employee of the broker (Lucas). Their complaint alleged, in part, intentional and negligent misrepresentation.1 In addition, it alleged that Bevins and Lucas had a duty to check the well’s condition, that Lucas knew there was no functional well, that Bevins was vicariously liable for Lucas’s acts, and that the Ferrises were vicariously liable for the actions of their agents, Bevins and Lucas. The complaint did not explicitly allege innocent misrepresentation.
After the close of plaintiffs’ evidence, the trial court dismissed certain counts of the complaint. First, the court ruled that the broker did not have a general duty to inspect the premises. Second, it held that the broker was not vicariously liable for the acts of his employee, Lucas. In a subsequent written decision, the court further ruled that Lucas was not liable. It then held that Bevins and the sellers were jointly and severally liable, each with a right of contribution from the other for any payment in excess of a pro rata share. While both the sellers and the broker filed timely notice of appeal, only Bevins, the broker, pursues his appeal.
The basis of the broker’s liability is not clear. The court found that the sellers were the source of the representation that the well was “good,” i.e., capable of supplying the reasonable water needs of the residents. It ruled that the broker had a right to rely on the representations, and thus the sellers were liable (as principals) for the act of Bevins (their broker and thus their agent) who passed on the misrepresentation. The court also found that Lucas passed on the representation intending that [760]*760it be relied upon; Bevins admitted to the same intent. The court further found that the Ballards did so rely, and that their reliance was justified.
Although the court earlier concluded that Bevins had no general duty to inspect, it subsequently held that a duty of inquiry arose when Lucas asked Bevins, on behalf of the Ballards, about the adequacy of the well. The court concluded that Bevins acted unreasonably by simply assuring Lucas that it was a “good well” rather than by investigating. Thus Bevins’ liability appears to rest on a negligence theory.
Certain facts are not contested:
1. The listing mentioned a 100 foot well.
2. The well proved to be incomplete, i.e., inadequate to support reasonable water needs.
3. Bevins, the broker, testified that the listing of a well would reasonably lead buyers to assume the well was “good,” i.e., adequate.
4. The Ballards relied on the listing and representations that the well was “good.”
5. Both Lucas and Bevins intended that the Ballards so rely.
As to the source of the misrepresentation, Bevins testified that he would not have written it on the listing unless it came from the sellers. The sellers, however, denied telling him about it; they testified that Bevins must have misunderstood. The court believed Bevins, concluding that the sellers were the original source of the representation.
B. The Broker’s Liability
There are three types of misrepresentations: intentional, negligent, and innocent. While the Ballards did assert an intentional misrepresentation claim against the sellers, they did not do so against Bevins or Lucas. Thus, we need address only the negligent and innocent misrepresentation claims in this appeal. Bevins’ liability to be sustained, must rest on one of these two theories.2
1. Negligent Misrepresentation
The Ballards’ third claim for relief stated a cause of action for negligence against Bevins. That claim alleged that Bevins had a duty to “take reasonable steps to determine whether or not the well ... was a completed well” and had sufficient capacity to support a purchaser’s reasonable water needs, that Bevins breached that duty, and that as a direct and proximate result of Bevins’ breach the Ballards purchased the property believing the well was completed. As noted, the trial court subsequently dismissed that claim, and the Ballards did not appeal. In its final opinion, however, the trial court imposed liability on grounds that Bevins had a “duty to inquire of the sellers whether the well was, in fact, ‘a good well.’ ” Bevins argues that the court thus held him negligent even though negligence was dismissed from the case and, further, that he was prejudiced thereby because dismissal of the third claim led him to forego a negligence defense.
We recognized the tort of negligent misrepresentation in Transamerica Title Insurance Co. v. Ramsey, 507 P.2d 492 (Alaska 1973), and Howarth v. Pfeifer, 443 P.2d 39 (Alaska 1968). Under this theory, Bevins could have been liable for breaching his duty to provide accurate information once he undertook to speak. In determining whether such a duty exists, one must consider: (a) whether the defendant had knowledge, or its equivalent, that the information was desired for a serious purpose and that the plaintiff intended to rely upon it; (b) the foreseeability of harm; (c) the degree of certainty that plaintiff would suf[761]*761fer harm; (d) the directness of causation; and (e) the policy of preventing future harm. Howarth v. Pfeifer, 443 P.2d at 42; see Transameriea Title Insurance Co. v. Ramsey, 507 P.2d at 494r-95.3 In the land sales context, such a duty can arise when a broker becomes aware of suspicious facts regarding his or her representations, or when a buyer makes an affirmative inquiry and the broker fails to check the accuracy of his subsequent responding representation, or when a court determines that public policy requires brokers to undertake certain functions. See, e.g., First Church of the Open Bible v. Cline J. Dunton Realty, Inc., 19 Wash.App. 275, 574 P.2d 1211 (1978).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[759]*759OPINION
BURKE, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment holding a real estate broker liable for certain misrepresentations made in the course of a real estate transaction.
A. Facts
On February 3, 1975, David and Linda Ballard purchased a lot with an unfinished dwelling from Josephine, Patricia, and William Ferris. Prior to their purchase, certain representations were allegedly made to the Ballards regarding the adequacy of a well on the property. The purchaser, David Ballard, who had previous experience as a general contractor, attempted to complete the existing well on the property. He installed a pump and piping from the well to the house. The well, however, failed to provide sufficient water. As a result, the Ballards were forced to haul water to their property. They subsequently incurred expenses of $6,935.00 in deepening the well to an adequate level.
Believing themselves the victims of fraudulent misrepresentations, the Ballards sued the sellers, the broker (Bevins), and an employee of the broker (Lucas). Their complaint alleged, in part, intentional and negligent misrepresentation.1 In addition, it alleged that Bevins and Lucas had a duty to check the well’s condition, that Lucas knew there was no functional well, that Bevins was vicariously liable for Lucas’s acts, and that the Ferrises were vicariously liable for the actions of their agents, Bevins and Lucas. The complaint did not explicitly allege innocent misrepresentation.
After the close of plaintiffs’ evidence, the trial court dismissed certain counts of the complaint. First, the court ruled that the broker did not have a general duty to inspect the premises. Second, it held that the broker was not vicariously liable for the acts of his employee, Lucas. In a subsequent written decision, the court further ruled that Lucas was not liable. It then held that Bevins and the sellers were jointly and severally liable, each with a right of contribution from the other for any payment in excess of a pro rata share. While both the sellers and the broker filed timely notice of appeal, only Bevins, the broker, pursues his appeal.
The basis of the broker’s liability is not clear. The court found that the sellers were the source of the representation that the well was “good,” i.e., capable of supplying the reasonable water needs of the residents. It ruled that the broker had a right to rely on the representations, and thus the sellers were liable (as principals) for the act of Bevins (their broker and thus their agent) who passed on the misrepresentation. The court also found that Lucas passed on the representation intending that [760]*760it be relied upon; Bevins admitted to the same intent. The court further found that the Ballards did so rely, and that their reliance was justified.
Although the court earlier concluded that Bevins had no general duty to inspect, it subsequently held that a duty of inquiry arose when Lucas asked Bevins, on behalf of the Ballards, about the adequacy of the well. The court concluded that Bevins acted unreasonably by simply assuring Lucas that it was a “good well” rather than by investigating. Thus Bevins’ liability appears to rest on a negligence theory.
Certain facts are not contested:
1. The listing mentioned a 100 foot well.
2. The well proved to be incomplete, i.e., inadequate to support reasonable water needs.
3. Bevins, the broker, testified that the listing of a well would reasonably lead buyers to assume the well was “good,” i.e., adequate.
4. The Ballards relied on the listing and representations that the well was “good.”
5. Both Lucas and Bevins intended that the Ballards so rely.
As to the source of the misrepresentation, Bevins testified that he would not have written it on the listing unless it came from the sellers. The sellers, however, denied telling him about it; they testified that Bevins must have misunderstood. The court believed Bevins, concluding that the sellers were the original source of the representation.
B. The Broker’s Liability
There are three types of misrepresentations: intentional, negligent, and innocent. While the Ballards did assert an intentional misrepresentation claim against the sellers, they did not do so against Bevins or Lucas. Thus, we need address only the negligent and innocent misrepresentation claims in this appeal. Bevins’ liability to be sustained, must rest on one of these two theories.2
1. Negligent Misrepresentation
The Ballards’ third claim for relief stated a cause of action for negligence against Bevins. That claim alleged that Bevins had a duty to “take reasonable steps to determine whether or not the well ... was a completed well” and had sufficient capacity to support a purchaser’s reasonable water needs, that Bevins breached that duty, and that as a direct and proximate result of Bevins’ breach the Ballards purchased the property believing the well was completed. As noted, the trial court subsequently dismissed that claim, and the Ballards did not appeal. In its final opinion, however, the trial court imposed liability on grounds that Bevins had a “duty to inquire of the sellers whether the well was, in fact, ‘a good well.’ ” Bevins argues that the court thus held him negligent even though negligence was dismissed from the case and, further, that he was prejudiced thereby because dismissal of the third claim led him to forego a negligence defense.
We recognized the tort of negligent misrepresentation in Transamerica Title Insurance Co. v. Ramsey, 507 P.2d 492 (Alaska 1973), and Howarth v. Pfeifer, 443 P.2d 39 (Alaska 1968). Under this theory, Bevins could have been liable for breaching his duty to provide accurate information once he undertook to speak. In determining whether such a duty exists, one must consider: (a) whether the defendant had knowledge, or its equivalent, that the information was desired for a serious purpose and that the plaintiff intended to rely upon it; (b) the foreseeability of harm; (c) the degree of certainty that plaintiff would suf[761]*761fer harm; (d) the directness of causation; and (e) the policy of preventing future harm. Howarth v. Pfeifer, 443 P.2d at 42; see Transameriea Title Insurance Co. v. Ramsey, 507 P.2d at 494r-95.3 In the land sales context, such a duty can arise when a broker becomes aware of suspicious facts regarding his or her representations, or when a buyer makes an affirmative inquiry and the broker fails to check the accuracy of his subsequent responding representation, or when a court determines that public policy requires brokers to undertake certain functions. See, e.g., First Church of the Open Bible v. Cline J. Dunton Realty, Inc., 19 Wash.App. 275, 574 P.2d 1211 (1978).
We believe, however, that the trial court’s dismissal of Ballards’ third claim for relief, which was their only negligence claim against Bevins, precludes the broker’s liability from resting on a negligent misrepresentation theory.4 While Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b) allows post-judgment amendments to conform the issues tried to the evidence, and further provides that the failure to so amend “does not affect the result of the trial” on those issues, the rule sets as a threshold the requirement that such issues be “tried by express or implied consent of the parties.” We do not believe that this condition was met in the case at bar. Subsequent to the dismissal neither party argued negligent misrepresentation in their trial briefs. The court and parties treated the case as one involving innocent misrepresentations. Bevins neither expressly nor impliedly consented to trying a negligence claim. Accordingly, Bevins’ liability cannot rest on a negligent misrepresentation theory.
2. Innocent Misrepresentation
The case went forward against Bevins on an apparent theory of innocent misrepresentation, evidenced by the colloquy quoted in note 4 and the arguments advanced in the trial briefs.5 The tort of innocent mis[762]*762representation is defined by section 552C(1) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977) as follows:
One who, in a sale, rental or exchange transaction with another, makes a misrepresentation of a material fact for the purpose of inducing the other to act or to refrain from acting in reliance upon it, is subject to liability to the other for pecuniary loss caused to him by his justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, even though it is not made fraudulently or negligently.
Id. The Restatement leaves open the question of whether such a cause of action lies against real estate brokers. Id. § 552C, Comment g.
We have recognized a cause of action against the owner of realty who innocently misrepresents its condition to the purchaser. Cousineau v. Walker, 613 P.2d 608 (Alaska 1980). In Cousineau, we granted rescission and restitution to a purchaser where the seller made false statements concerning the highway frontage and gravel content of the purchased land. In so doing, we held that an owner guilty of even innocent misrepresentation could not hide behind the doctrine of caveat emptor. Id. at 614-16. This is so because owners are presumed to know the character and attributes of the land conveyed and buyers are consequently entitled to rely on the seller’s reasonable representations. See Sorenson v. Adams, 98 Idaho 708, 571 P.2d 769, 776 (1977), quoted in Cousineau v. Walker, 613 P.2d 608, 615 n. 14 (Alaska 1980). The owner of land must therefore be both truthful and informed in making any representations, for fraud includes the pretense of knowledge where there is none. Spargna-pani v. Wright, 110 A.2d 82, 84 (D.C.App. 1954).
The question presented in this case is whether or not liability for innocent misrepresentation should extend to the owner’s agent, the real estate broker, where that party serves as a conduit for the owner’s misinformation. Most courts addressing this issue recognize a cause of action by the purchasers of property against the broker for the latter’s innocent misrepresentation.6
An illustrative case is Spargnapani v. Wright, 110 A.2d 82 (D.C.App.1954). There, both the seller and broker were held liable for representing that a house could be heated for a little more than $100.00 per year, when a defect in the boiler made it impossible to heat the house at all. Id. at 85. The broker had merely passed on the seller’s information, and neither defendant had knowledge of a defect. Nevertheless, the court sustained liability:
If the broker innocently represented that the heating plant was in workable condition and was mistaken in that representation, or made the representation without knowing whether it was true or false, the injured party may recover in an action for fraud.
... We may assume that the broker was guilty of no deliberate deception and had no actual knowledge of the concealed defect. But on defendants’ own evidence their selling agent did not disclaim such knowledge .... The representation ... was flagrantly inaccurate, since the defect ... made it impossible to heat the house at all .... “Fraud includes the [763]*763pretense of knowledge when knowledge there is none.”
Id. at 83-84 (citations omitted).
The policy favoring liability for innocent misrepresentation is found on a recognition that purchasers should be entitled to rely on a broker’s representations. As one opinion notes:
Real estate brokers and their agents hold themselves out to the public as having specialized knowledge with regard to housing, housing conditions and related matters. The public is entitled to and does rely on the expertise of real estate brokers in the purchase and sale of its homes. Therefore there is a duty on the part of real estate brokers to be accurate and knowledgeable concerning the product they are in the business of selling— that is, homes and other types of real estate. Courts have held in many cases that purchasers are entitled to rely on real estate brokers’ statements.
Lyons v. Christ Episcopal Church, 71 Ill. App.3d 257, 27 Ill.Dec. 559, 389 N.E.2d 623, 628 (1979) (dissenting opinion).
We find this reasoning persuasive. Parties to real estate transactions frequently do not deal on equal terms. Real estate brokers are licensed professionals, possessing superior knowledge of the realty they sell and the real estate market generally. Prospective purchasers recognize this expertise and tend to rely on a broker’s representations. Just as purchasers are entitled to rely on an owner’s representations, Cousineau v. Walker, 613 P.2d 608 (Alaska 1980), purchasers should be entitled to rely on the broker’s representations. Any other rule would permit brokers to use misleading statements in selling the property, yet remain immune from liability by simply remaining ignorant of the property’s true characteristics. Accordingly, we hold that a purchaser who relies on a material misrepresentation, even though innocently made, has a cause of action against the broker originating or communicating the misrepresentation. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552C(1) (1977).
In our view, the consequences of recognizing a cause of action in this situation are entirely beneficial. The presence of a cause of action against the broker would tend to lessen the likelihood of transactions tainted by misinformation and confusion. Additionally, recognizing a cause of action against the broker would provide another source of recovery to the purchaser of defective property. Frequently, the owners may move away, leaving the broker as the only reachable defendant. As between the broker who communicated the misrepresentation, and the purchaser whose only fault was to rely on the broker, we think it preferable that the broker bear any loss caused by misrepresentation. Brokers, in turn, can protect themselves from liability by investigating the owner’s statements, or by disclaiming knowledge, by requiring the seller to sign at the time of listing a statement setting forth representations which will be made, certifying that they are true and providing for indemnification if they are not.7 See Goldman v. Hart, 134 Ga. App. 422, 214 S.E.2d 670 (1975).
Having determined that a cause of action in innocent misrepresentation exists, it is apparent that the judgment below must be affirmed. Bevins does not contest that the listing he prepared mentioned a 100 foot well, that this listing would reasonably lead buyers to assume the well was good, that the Ballards so relied, and that the well was, in actuality, inadequate. These facts establish liability under an innocent misrepresentation theory. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552C(1) (1977). The decision below is therefore AFFIRMED.8
COMPTON, J., not participating.