Dental Clinic With Missing Drying Logs
A 7,500 sq ft dental clinic’s autoclave supply line failed at 22:00 Saturday and was discovered at 07:00 Monday. The loss is Category 1 and affects about 2,900 sq ft: carpet in reception, vinyl plank in the break room, painted gypsum partitions, and built-in millwork. The project manager left the company Wednesday. Drying logs exist for Monday and Thursday only; equipment invoices show 18 air movers, 5 LGR dehumidifiers, and 1 extraction unit on site for five days. No daily psychrometric readings were recorded, but the building automation system shows 72°F/55% RH Monday, 78°F/48% RH Wednesday, and 80°F/42% RH Friday. Initial moisture readings were 24–30% WME in carpet and 16–19% in wall base; final readings are 8–10% and 9–11%, respectively. The adjuster disputes the five-day equipment charge and argues the loss should have dried in three days. The clinic reopened Saturday.
1. Reconstruct a defensible drying log from the available data, and state what can and cannot be substantiated.
Read the worked answer
Reconstruct what can be documented: BAS data give temperature and RH for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; equipment invoices prove the machines were invoiced, not necessarily placed. Initial and final material readings show a drying trend, but the missing Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday logs mean daily monitoring cannot be fully substantiated. Build a timeline table with known dates, source of data, and confidence level. Calculate psychrometric values from BAS data to show the drying environment, but do not invent daily readings. Use photos and invoice dates to support equipment presence. In the report, state explicitly that three daily logs are missing and that the project manager left. Offer a conservative billing adjustment for the undocumented days rather than billing them as fully monitored. This protects credibility with the adjuster and supports the days that can be verified.
2. How would you respond to the adjuster’s claim that a three-day drying duration was sufficient?
Read the worked answer
The five-day duration is plausible but not fully proven by the records. The loss affected carpet, vinyl plank, gypsum wall base, and built-in millwork; millwork and vinyl plank are slower-drying assemblies because water is trapped at edges and toe kicks. The BAS readings also do not show a tightly controlled drying chamber: 72°F/55% RH on Monday and 78°F/48% RH on Wednesday are relatively humid conditions, so drying would not necessarily be a three-day event unless dehumidification was aggressive and documented. I would not simply defend all five days. I would present initial and final readings, equipment invoices, photos, and a psychrometric explanation, then negotiate the undocumented days. If the adjuster insists on three days, offer a documented compromise for the missing-log period while maintaining that the millwork and vinyl plank required extended drying. Do not backdate readings or create a log that did not exist.
3. What process-administration controls would prevent this documentation gap on future losses?
Read the worked answer
Process controls: require daily logs with time-stamped photos, psychrometric readings, material moisture readings by location, equipment serial numbers, and technician initials. Use a cloud form that cannot be edited without an audit trail. Require a project handoff before any project manager leaves, with a signed equipment placement sketch and open-items list. Issue a change order whenever equipment or duration exceeds the original estimate, and get customer sign-off. Build a weekly file audit by a supervisor. For this job, add a corrective-action memo to the file explaining the missing logs, the reconstructed timeline, and the billing adjustment. That gives the adjuster a defensible record and prevents the same gap on the next loss.