The NAM joined several other business organizations 5/9/03 to urge reversal of a ruling holding a duct board manufacturer liable for office building demolition and replacement costs after a fire released trace levels of PCBs. We argued that absolute liability in this case improperly expands product liability law, since every product has some risk and a mere risk of harm is not necessarily a defect. Manufacturers should not be insurers of their products.On 5/25/06, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, ruling that (1) the full replacement cost of the building is not the proper measure of damages, but factors such as depreciation should be considered to prevent a windfall to the building owner, (2) the manufacturer should not be held strictly liable for unintended uses of the product, such as in a building fire, (3) they may be held liable for remediation of damages caused to property from an increased risk of future harm, and (4) full replacement cost damages were inappropriate when less expensive alternatives may have been available. This is an important Pennsylvania decision on the measure of damages to property when a product poses ongoing hazards.