Source: http://atty4homeowners.blogspot.com/2016/04/exploiting-wis-stat-s-452142s.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:58:54+00:00

Document:
(2) The period of limitation under this section may not be reduced by agreement.
(3) The period of limitation under this section does not apply to disciplinary actions initiated by the board.
Today, we'll focus on the buyer's claims against the seller's real estate agent. As I said in an earlier post, the buyer's most likely claims against the seller's agent are misrepresentation claims. Seller's agents may misrepresent a property through violating their duty to disclose material adverse facts. For example, the buyer in my last post has a viable misrepresentation claim against the seller's agent for failing to disclose that the property's basement leaked. Seller's agents may also affirmatively misrepresent the property in their advertising on the Multiple Listing Service. In my time, I've seen seller's agents misrepresent square footage, number of bedrooms, conforming use, zoning, acreage, and buildability.
This section does not apply to a person licensed as a broker or salesperson under s. 452.09 while that person is engaged in real estate practice, as defined in s. 452.01 (6), unless that person has directly made, published, disseminated, circulated or placed before the public an assertion, representation or statement of fact with the knowledge that the assertion, representation or statement of fact is untrue, deceptive or misleading.
Any person suffering pecuniary loss because of a violation of this section by any other person may sue in any court of competent jurisdiction and shall recover such pecuniary loss, together with costs, including reasonable attorney fees, except that no attorney fees may be recovered from a person licensed under ch. 452 while that person is engaged in real estate practice, as defined in s. 452.01 (6).
Wis. Stat. § 100.18(11)(b)2. In light of these hurdles, there's no real incentive to pursue a § 100.18 claim against a real estate agent. Instead, I typically allege common law negligent, strict liability, and intentional misrepresentation causes of action. These causes of action are not barred by the economic loss doctrine because the buyer does not enter into a contract with the seller's real estate agent. Shister v. Patel, 2009 WI App 163.
** I HAVE UPDATED THE REMAINING CONTENT IN LIGHT OF 2017 WIS. ACT 235, WHICH SHORTENED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF FRAUD CLAIMS FROM SIX YEARS TO THREE YEARS.
So how does Wis. Stat. § 452.142 affect a buyer's common law misrepresentation claims against the seller's real estate agent? In my opinion, buyers still have at least 3 years to commence an intentional misrepresentation cause of action against the seller's agent notwithstanding the new statute. Additionally, buyers MIGHT still have at least 3 years to commence negligent and strict liability misrepresentation causes of action against the seller's agent. The issue is how courts interpret "fraud" under Wis. Stat. § 893.93(1m)(b).
An action for relief on the ground of fraud. The cause of action in such case is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud.
Even at law, recovery in damages is allowed for fraud not amounting to deceit. Fraud is a generic and an ambiguous term. It embranches misrepresentation which may be separated into the three familiar tort classifications of intent, negligence, and strict responsibility.
Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis. 2d 166, 168 N.W.2d 201 (1969). I have not been able to find any published Wisconsin state court decision deciding what statute of limitation applies to causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and strict liability misrepresentation. Adding to the confusion, United States District Court Judge Lynn Adelman decided this issue twice within the course of two years and came to contrary conclusions. In Schimpf v. Gerald Inc., 52 F. Supp. 2d 976 (E.D. Wis. 1999), he rejected the defendant's argument that § 893.54 governs negligent misrepresentation claims, but then held that § 893.52 governs such claims. Id. at 1007. In Lewis v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 80 F. Supp. 2d 978 (E.D. Wis. 2000), however, he held that § 893.93(1)(b) applied to all common law misrepresentation claims, including those for negligent and strict liability misrepresentation. Id. at 994-95. Perhaps no one brought § 893.93(1)(b) to Judge Adelman's attention in Schimpf?
Based on this uncertainty, I see no reason to change how I approach buyer misrepresentation claims against the seller's real estate agent. I will continue to plead and try to prove causes of action for negligent, strict liability, and intentional misrepresentation. The bottom line is that the new statute should have little effect on buyers' claims against sellers' agents.

References: § 100
 § 100
 v. 
 § 452
 § 893
 v. 
 v. 
 § 893
 § 893
 v. 
 § 893
 § 893