Provider profile
G.W. Savage Corp.
Provider snapshot
What this listing says
South Burlington and Rutland homeowners dealing with water damage or mold tied to plumbing failures who want a locally owned restoration company with two Vermont offices and insurance carrier relationships.
Best for
- Burlington and Rutland-area homeowners who need mold removal after a water damage event and want one company to handle both the water mitigation and the mold remediation.
- Property owners who want their restoration company to handle insurance claims directly, since G.W. Savage has preferred contractor status with multiple carriers.
About this company
G.W. Savage is a restoration company based in South Burlington, Vermont, with a second office in Rutland. Mold removal is one piece of a broader operation that covers water damage, fire damage, storm damage, biohazard cleanup, and reconstruction. They've been doing this since 1977 and run 24/7 emergency service staffed by their own team.
The mold removal process on their website describes isolating affected areas, HEPA vacuuming, cleaning with specially formulated detergent, dehumidification, and disposal of materials that cannot be saved. They also use Matterport 3D scanning to document damage, and they have 8 full-time estimators who work directly with insurance carriers. G.W. Savage is a designated preferred contractor for multiple insurance companies.
This is a locally owned company, not a franchise. Tyler Savage serves as president. They hold IICRC certification and Lead Safe certification, and they are members of Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility and the Lake Champlain Chamber. They claim to be the largest emergency restoration operation in Vermont and offer national mobilization for catastrophic disaster recovery.
Services
Service area
G.W. Savage is headquartered in South Burlington, Vermont, with a second office in Rutland. They serve Vermont statewide and reference handling jobs in Richford and other areas across the state. They also claim national mobilization capability for catastrophic disaster recovery, though this is geared toward commercial and insurance deployments.
Review consensus
Ramone and Kenford show up together across multiple reviews and consistently draw praise for being polite, respectful of property, and thorough. Lee is named in four reviews for mold remediation and sewage cleanup work, always positively. Ryan gets credit for explaining the process clearly. Chris Abbott is named as a project manager who follows through. Response time is the single most praised attribute: multiple reviewers describe crews arriving within 30 to 45 minutes. Several reviewers note the team saved items that could have been thrown out. Repeat customers exist, with one reviewer noting three separate jobs at three different locations.
5 found across 29 total reviews at 4.7★. Kevin Pioli-Hunt called the 24/7 emergency line with two inches of standing water and says the on-call technician asked if he could just deal with it in the morning. Nabi Khorrami says the crew removed expensive hardwood flooring without his permission and did not remove soaked ceiling sheetrock, and that no one returned his complaint call. Erin Russell-Story hired them for a $9,000+ drug residue cleanup and says the finished work was poor and items went missing, and that staff told her to pound sand when she complained. Justin Martel says he lost thousands in personal property that was mishandled or tossed during restoration. Andy Wood left a vague warning without specifics. Tyler Savage, the company president, responded to every negative review. His responses to Khorrami and Pioli-Hunt were personalized and acknowledged the specific failures. His responses to Wood and Martel noted he could not find them in customer records.
The complaints cluster around two themes: crew-level communication failures (removing materials without permission, dismissing emergency calls) and contents handling (missing or discarded belongings). Tyler Savage responds to every negative review personally and by name, which signals active reputation management. But the response to Erin Russell-Story's $9,000 cleaning complaint defaulted to asking her to call the office rather than engaging with the specifics of missing items and poor quality, which weakens the otherwise strong response pattern.
Ramone (technician — praised repeatedly for politeness and thoroughness), Kenford (technician — praised repeatedly alongside Ramone for respectful work), Lee (technician — praised for mold remediation, sewage cleanup, knowledgeable demeanor), Ryan (technician — praised for explaining the process, helpfulness), Jermaine (technician — praised for mold remediation work), Steve/Steven (technician — praised for mold remediation and daily presence), Troy (technician — praised for tidy patching and painting), Chris Abbott (project manager — praised for prompt follow-through), Nate (technician — praised for quick sewage response), Dylan Goebel (technician — named in review), Matthew Aikey (technician — named in review), Cassidy (technician — praised for communication), Tyler Savage (president — responds to all negative reviews personally).
G.W. Savage has a strong field team, especially Ramone and Kenford for water mitigation and Lee for mold work. Ask for them by name. The 5-out-of-29 negative ratio is higher than you want to see, and the complaints about removed property and dismissed emergency calls are serious enough to warrant direct conversation before signing a contract. Get explicit written confirmation of what will and will not be removed or discarded.
Keep in mind
- Five 1-star reviews in the last 18 months out of 29 total is a notable ratio. Complaints range from an after-hours technician who tried to defer an emergency to the next morning, to a crew that removed hardwood flooring without the homeowner's permission.
- Mold removal is a secondary service here. G.W. Savage is primarily a water and fire damage restoration company. If you have a standalone mold issue unrelated to water damage, confirm they will treat it with the same urgency.
- Two of the five negative reviewers could not be found in the company's customer records, according to the owner's responses. This does not invalidate the reviews, but it is worth noting.