The Naples paid Keystone Building \($620,000\) to build a new home. It had major defects that Keystone failed to correct despite a warranty on the house. A qualified expert said repairs would cost \($120,000,\) the amount the Naples sued for. The trial judge recognized the defects but awarded \($60,000\).

The Naples appealed that award for damages should have been the amount established by the expert. Is it reasonable for a judge to split the damages 50/50?

[Naples v. Keystone Building, 295 Conn. 214 (Sup. Ct., Conn., 2010)]