Start with the file conditions, not the billed total
Drying days only make sense in the context of the actual loss. Before focusing on the invoice, confirm the cause of loss, the reported category and class, the affected rooms, and the materials that needed to dry.
If the file does not clearly show what was wet, how wet it was, or how quickly conditions improved, the billed duration may be hard to defend even when the total invoice looks orderly.
Compare the billed timeline to the drying record
Look for daily notes, moisture readings, psychrometric detail, and equipment monitoring entries that show the claim moving toward a dry standard.
When billed days extend but the file does not show a consistent moisture trend, a reviewer usually needs more support before approving the full duration.
- Missing or incomplete daily logs
- Moisture readings that stop before the final billed day
- No explanation for pauses, resets, or rewetting events
- Monitoring entries that do not match the number of billed days
Review equipment and duration together
Drying duration and equipment usage should tell the same story. If the vendor billed for an aggressive equipment load, the file should show why that setup was needed and how long it was actually required.
Oversized equipment paired with long durations is often where a file needs a closer look, especially when the documentation package is thin.
Document the next action clearly
A strong peer review does more than say a duration feels high. It explains what was billed, what support exists, what is missing, and what the adjuster should do next.
That might mean approve as billed, request additional monitoring detail, revise a portion of the duration, or escalate the file for deeper review.