4 . We further note that Reyes is distinguishable from this case. In Reyes, the employer contested the application of the fair notice requirements, but also conceded that if the conspicuousness requirement applied, then the waiver signed by the employee was inconspicuous. The appellate court remanded the cause for a fact determination of whether the employee had actual knowledge of the terms of the plan. Reyes, 134 S.W.3d at 193. Reyes did not specifically apply the "actual knowledge” exception to the express negligence requirement. Id. at 192-94. Further, as support for applying the actual notice exception, Reyes cites Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 505(which applies "actual notice” to the conspicuousness requirement) and Dresser cites Cate v. Dover Corp., 790 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tex.1990)(<HOLDING>). The Hospital does not direct us to any case
holding that a standard form disclaimer for negligence of thirdparty tour operators which appeared on plaintiffs cruise ticket was valid as a disclaimer holding inconspicuous written disclaimer to be unenforceable absent actual knowledge of the disclaimer holding that the language in the lease agreement for computer accounting programs was an effective disclaimer of an implied warranty but for language in a statement of installation conditions which document created a genuine issue of material fact as to disclaimer holding that similarly worded disclaimer was sufficiently unambiguous holding similar language to be a valid disclaimer