We just had a leak in our ceiling which caused some water
damage to the ceiling and exterior wall of one of our
bedrooms. The exterior wall has loose cellulose insulation
that was blown into the empty wall cavities a year or so ago.

The insurance adjuster assumed that some of the cellulose
insulation in the wall was damaged, and he included in his
estimate money for removing the top two feet of the drywall
and replacing it and the insulation behind it with new stuff.

He said we should blow in cellulose like what was there
before. That seems odd to me, because:

a) As far as I know, the only reason you use blown-in
insulation rather than other types is because you can blow it
in through small holes and don't have to take apart all the
walls to install it. In our case, the wall is already going to
be taken apart.

b) It'll in fact be harder for us to reinstall cellulose,
because if we do it before the new drywall is put up, it's
awfully hard to get the cellulose to stay in (what are we
going to do, carefully stack it one piece at a time? :-), and
if we do it after the new drywall is up, we need specialty
insulation-blowing equipment that the painting / drywall guys
are not likely to have.

c) Fiberglass batt insulation is less expensive, better
insulating and easier to install in an open wall than blown-in
cellulose.

I asked the adjuster about this, and he said, "You don't want
to have two different types of insulation in the same wall,"
but he wasn't able to offer any sort of explanation for why.

Am I right that if we're going to bother to take down the
wall, we should just replace the cellulose with fiberglass
batt insulation?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

In article ,
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

b) It'll in fact be harder for us to reinstall cellulose,
because if we do it before the new drywall is put up, it's
awfully hard to get the cellulose to stay in (what are we
going to do, carefully stack it one piece at a time? :-), and
if we do it after the new drywall is up, we need specialty
insulation-blowing equipment that the painting / drywall guys
are not likely to have.

you could install plastic vapor barrier and blow the cellulose in from the very
top, then tape any holes

Jonathan Kamens wrote:

We just had a leak in our ceiling which caused some water
damage to the ceiling and exterior wall of one of our
bedrooms. The exterior wall has loose cellulose insulation
that was blown into the empty wall cavities a year or so ago.

The insurance adjuster assumed that some of the cellulose
insulation in the wall was damaged, and he included in his
estimate money for removing the top two feet of the drywall
and replacing it and the insulation behind it with new stuff.

He said we should blow in cellulose like what was there
before. That seems odd to me, because:

a) As far as I know, the only reason you use blown-in
insulation rather than other types is because you can blow it
in through small holes and don't have to take apart all the
walls to install it. In our case, the wall is already going to
be taken apart.

b) It'll in fact be harder for us to reinstall cellulose,
because if we do it before the new drywall is put up, it's
awfully hard to get the cellulose to stay in (what are we
going to do, carefully stack it one piece at a time? :-), and
if we do it after the new drywall is up, we need specialty
insulation-blowing equipment that the painting / drywall guys
are not likely to have.

c) Fiberglass batt insulation is less expensive, better
insulating and easier to install in an open wall than blown-in
cellulose.

I asked the adjuster about this, and he said, "You don't want
to have two different types of insulation in the same wall,"
but he wasn't able to offer any sort of explanation for why.

Am I right that if we're going to bother to take down the
wall, we should just replace the cellulose with fiberglass
batt insulation?

If it was my choice, I'd use fiberglass batt.

I think the adjuster is batty.