Why I am documenting this
I hired Caviglia Construction for a major new-home project. More than $1.5 million was spent on the build. I expected problems that naturally arise during construction to be managed through communication, supervision of subcontractors and follow-through on promised corrections.
My experience was different. The most significant issues involved recurring communication gaps, outstanding work near the end of the project and a prolonged dispute concerning the exterior stucco installation and repairs.
The stucco problems began during the original installation
When the stucco was installed in approximately August 2025, I was at the property regularly and personally watched the work. I observed cracking begin essentially immediately. I texted and called the general contractor repeatedly because I was concerned about what I was seeing.
For roughly a month, I received little or no meaningful response concerning the stucco. When I later arrived at the property, cracks had been filled and the exterior had been painted. In my opinion, the patching was highly visible, overfilled in places and unacceptable for a newly built custom home.
A supplier representative inspected the work
Mario Caviglia later arranged for a representative from Stucco Supply, whom I knew as Dave, to visit the property. My recollection is that he was highly critical of the appearance and quality of the patching and said he would be very upset if the home were his. The contractor has subsequently expressed a different interpretation of what that inspection established, so I want to be clear that this paragraph reflects my recollection of the visit.
Promises to address the cracking
After the problem was raised, Mario told us that the stucco cracking would be addressed. Some areas at the front of the property did receive additional work. My continuing request has been for the remaining original problem areas around the home to be handled appropriately as well.
The cracking and other exterior issues continued
Over time, cracks remained visible or reopened in multiple locations. We documented cracks around windows and across wall surfaces, areas that appeared to bulge, and missing stucco around an exterior camera installation. We sent photographs and messages directly to the contractor and asked for these areas to be inspected and repaired.
An independent review and a disagreement about cause
I sought opinions from other construction and stucco professionals and obtained an independent review. Concerns relayed to the contractor included the amount of material observed in sampled scratch-coat areas and the quality of prior patch repairs.
The contractor disputed that characterization. His written position was that soil conditions, moisture, foundation-depth differences and continued movement of the structure contributed to the cracking. He also stated that he and the stucco subcontractor were willing to address cracking while the broader team evaluated the underlying movement.
I disagreed because I personally observed widespread cracking beginning during the original installation, before the later events the contractor cited. That disagreement remains central to the dispute.
The larger issue: communication
The communication problems were not limited to the original stucco episode. Near the end of the project, we had a substantial punch list and repeatedly attempted to reach Mario by telephone, voicemail, text and email. At one point approximately four weeks passed without a response to our attempts to communicate.
We were trying to establish when remaining repairs would be completed, when final inspections would happen and when we could walk the outstanding issues together. We eventually sent formal written correspondence because ordinary follow-up was not producing a response.
Mario ultimately replied and apologized that he had not been available, stated that the company was not going anywhere and said the areas of concern would be addressed. Some items subsequently received attention, but the repeated communication breakdowns remained a major part of our experience.
Outstanding items went beyond stucco
Our punch-list correspondence included stucco cracking and bulging, missing stucco around a camera, door and slider adjustments, a damaged screen, cabinet and paint touch-ups, flooring concerns, lighting installation, security-camera issues and final inspections, among other items.
Some of these issues were later worked on. My concern is not that nothing was ever done; it is the difficulty obtaining consistent communication, a dependable schedule and final resolution.
Attorney involvement
Eventually, we retained an attorney to assist with communication and resolution of the remaining issues. I never expected that level of escalation would be necessary simply to close out a major residential construction project.
What I expected from a general contractor
I did not expect a construction project with zero problems. I expected accountability. If a subcontractor's work was questioned, I expected the general contractor to investigate and manage the correction. If a problem had an engineering explanation, I expected it to be clearly evaluated and communicated. And if a repair would take time, I expected regular updates rather than extended silence.
Where the project stands
As of this update, I continue to seek resolution of the remaining concerns, including the stucco issues. If the outstanding items are resolved, I intend to update this page to reflect that outcome.
Correction / response policy: If Caviglia Construction believes a factual statement on this page is inaccurate, it may request a correction. The contractor may also submit a response for publication. Opinion statements will not be altered merely because the parties disagree, but verifiable factual errors will be corrected.