Gene Busroe And Sue Busroe, Apps. v. Dreamers Rod, Res., 74212-4

Gene and Sue Busroe contracted orally with Dreamers Rod, Custom & Pick-Ups N.W., Inc. to store and perform restoration work on a 1955 Chevrolet pickup; Busroe also performed much work himself and hired Dreamers for specific tasks.
Busroe had the truck body bead blasted by Alternative Blasters, then delivered the bare metal parts to Dreamers’ shop; Dreamers applied sealant and later a subcontractor painted the truck.
Dreamers’ shop records (invoice entries dated Sept. 28, Oct. 5–6, 2006) show receipt of "bare metal," concerns that parts were wet, and sealing with D.P. sealer in 2006; painting occurred in 2009.
Paint began bubbling and blistering starting in 2011 and worsened; Busroe sued Dreamers in August 2013 alleging improper painting/repair but did not plead a specific cause of action.
After a two-day bench trial, the court entered findings that (1) bead blasting and sealing occurred in 2006, (2) the bead blast did not remove all rust, (3) parts were exposed to moisture/wetness before sealing, and (4) Dreamers’ conduct did not proximately cause the subsequent paint deterioration; judgment for Dreamers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether record supports finding that bead blasting/delivery occurred in 2006	Busroe: no evidence shows bead blasting occurred in 2006; dates are unsupported	Dreamers: contemporaneous invoices and employee testimony support 2006 timing	Court: substantial evidence (invoices, testimony) supports 2006 finding
Whether Dreamers proximately caused paint deterioration	Busroe: poor painting/sealing by Dreamers caused later bubbling/blistering	Dreamers: rust pre-existed, bead blast didn’t remove all rust, parts were wet before sealing, so not proximate cause	Court: unchallenged findings show rust remained and parts were wet; Dreamers not the proximate cause
Whether a breach-of-contract claim (oral) accrued and is time-barred	Busroe: dispute over when claim accrued; challenges timing findings	Dreamers: invoice put Busroe on inquiry/actual notice in 2006; three-year limitations for oral contracts expired in 2009	Court: found inquiry notice from 2006 invoice; limitations period ran by Oct 2009; complaint filed 2013—untimely (alternative theory)
Sufficiency of evidence supporting findings/conclusions	Busroe: challenges sufficiency of key findings (date and gap) undermining conclusions	Dreamers: documentary and witness evidence sufficiently support findings	Court: substantial evidence supports findings and conclusions; affirmed

Endicott v. Saul, 142 Wn. App. 899 (discussing standard of review for bench-trial findings and substantial evidence)
Kitsap County v. Kitsap Rifle & Revolver Club, 184 Wn. App. 252 (unchallenged findings treated as verities on appeal)
Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc., 170 Wn.2d 380 (economic loss rule referenced though not resolved here)