Provider profile
Ercolano Cleaning & Restoration
Provider snapshot
What this listing says
North Haven and Fairfield County homeowners dealing with water damage that has led to mold, who want one company to handle extraction, drying, remediation, and reconstruction under a single insurance claim.
Best for
- Connecticut homeowners whose water damage has led to mold and want one contractor from extraction through rebuild.
- Commercial property managers needing 24/7 emergency response for water, fire, or mold events across multiple facilities.
- Homeowners in older Connecticut homes who need asbestos or lead testing and abatement bundled with mold remediation.
- Insurance claimants who want the restoration company to coordinate directly with their carrier on documentation and billing.
- Families dealing with fire damage who need contents packout, cleaning, storage, and full reconstruction under one roof.
About this company
Ercolano Cleaning & Restoration runs out of North Haven, Connecticut, with a second office in Westport. They started in 1979, which gives them over 45 years in the restoration business. Their primary identity is water and fire damage restoration, but they handle the full chain: mold remediation, asbestos and lead abatement, biohazard cleanup, and contents packout and storage. They serve both residential and commercial properties across Connecticut and into Western Massachusetts.
The mold work ties directly into their water damage pipeline. Their technicians use thermal imaging and moisture meters to find active growth, send samples to a mold assessor for a removal plan, then handle containment, HEPA vacuuming, air scrubbing, dehumidification, and antimicrobial treatment. They also do full reconstruction after remediation, which means you can keep one company from the initial water event through the final rebuild. They claim IICRC-certified technicians and a 45-minute emergency response window, 24/7.
The company is family-connected — John Ercolano is named in reviews as someone who gets involved in jobs. They offer financing for work not covered by insurance, and they coordinate directly with insurance providers on claims. With 264 Google reviews and a 4.7-star rating, they have a substantial track record. The volume of positive reviews praising specific staff by name — Justin, Steve, Joe, Angel, Will Mara — suggests a team that regularly earns repeat trust from homeowners in crisis situations.
Services
Service area
Headquartered in North Haven, Connecticut, with a second office in Westport, Connecticut. They serve all of Connecticut and Western Massachusetts. With only two offices covering that territory, confirm crew availability and response times for locations far from the I-91 or I-95 corridors.
Review consensus
Justin Chabot gets the most mentions — reviewers call out his responsiveness, clear process explanations, and hands-on project management from first call through completion. Joe (the owner) is praised for honest assessments and willingness to explain mold situations directly. Steve draws praise for mitigation work and careful handling of personal belongings during packout. Will Mara earned specific mentions for knowledge and thoroughness. Angel is praised for carpet and rug cleaning quality and on-time arrivals. Bryan Clements is noted for handling estimates and insurance paperwork. The emergency response speed is the most consistent theme — multiple reviewers confirm someone arrived within hours of their call, even on holidays.
6 found across 264 total reviews at 4.7★. Richard Martin hired Ercolano in January and did not get his project finished until July — a 6-month timeline on what was quoted as 4 weeks. He also reports possessions going missing during the project with no follow-up from the company. William Howard describes an 8-week timeline for a single-room water leak repair, with workers leaving trash and treating the property disrespectfully. The reviewer known as C describes a 3-month ordeal trying to get a spare key returned after mitigation work on a flooded condo, naming Steven, Kyle, and Joe as giving conflicting information. Thomas Lalumiere alleges Nate and Holly showed up at his mother's fire-damaged home claiming affiliation with the fire department, charged $2,500, and threatened a lien for $9,000. Phu Trinh claims the company inflated water damage findings for insurance purposes and sent collections for work never performed. Dylan Devlin describes reconstruction crews who did not want to do agreed-upon upgrades, charged for work not completed, and never submitted insurance reimbursement paperwork six months later.
The split between mitigation and reconstruction quality is striking. Every negative review involves the reconstruction or restoration phase — timeline overruns, subcontractor quality, billing disputes, missing belongings. The emergency response and initial cleanup phases get praised even by dissatisfied reviewers. This pattern suggests the company's core mitigation team performs well, but the handoff to reconstruction crews introduces different personnel and less oversight. Owner responses reinforce this: they follow a template structure that acknowledges the feedback and invites contact but never describes what went wrong or what changed. The 75% response rate on negatives shows reputation awareness without evidence of operational follow-through.
Justin Chabot (project manager — praised repeatedly for responsiveness and clear communication), Joe (owner — praised for honest assessments and hands-on involvement; named negatively by one reviewer for conflicting information), Steve (mitigation lead — praised for careful packout and fast response), Will Mara (technician — praised for knowledge and thoroughness), Angel (cleaning technician — praised for quality rug/carpet work and punctuality), Bryan Clements (estimates — praised for handling paperwork), Ben (project manager — praised for attentiveness), Lindsey (insurance coordinator — praised for guiding a claim start to finish), Sheldon (technician — praised for mold inspection), John Szost (rebuild manager — praised for finishing ahead of schedule), Todd (praised for follow-up calls), Juan and Ernesto (praised for emergency work), Marcos (praised alongside Justin), Nate and Holly (named negatively — alleged fire-chasing), Steven and Kyle (named negatively — conflicting information on key return)
Ask for Justin Chabot or Steve on the mitigation side — they have the strongest track records in reviews. If your job involves reconstruction, get the full timeline in writing with milestones, and verify every invoice line against completed work before paying. The emergency response and mold remediation work earn genuine praise, but the reconstruction handoff is where this company loses control of quality and communication.
Keep in mind
- Ercolano does both mold testing and mold remediation. When the same company identifies the problem and sells the fix, you lose the independent check that a separate inspector provides. Get an independent mold assessment before committing to their remediation scope.
- Reconstruction is where complaints pile up. Multiple reviewers report timelines stretching far beyond initial estimates — one job quoted at 4 weeks took 6 months. The mitigation and demo phases get praised; the rebuild phase is where communication and follow-through break down.
- Several reviewers describe billing surprises during reconstruction: charges for work not completed, insurance reimbursements never submitted, and contract fine print around cancellation windows. Review every line item against completed work before signing off.
- Owner responses to negative reviews follow a template pattern — polite but generic, rarely engaging with the specific complaint. Six of eight recent negatives received responses, but none described concrete steps toward resolution.
- Their service area covers all of Connecticut and Western Massachusetts, which is broad for a two-office operation. Confirm response times and crew availability for locations far from North Haven or Westport.