.

Taylor E. Kosko

Associate

TEKosko@mdwcg.com

Portrait of Taylor E. Kosko

Taylor is an associate in the Casualty Department at Marshall Dennehey, concentrating her practice in asbestos, mass, and toxic tort matters arising out of exposure to asbestos, silica, and benzine. In addition to her work in asbestos and toxic tort cases, Taylor also assists in the defense of general liability matters.  These include product liability, premises liability, automobile accidents, and dram shop/liquor liability cases. She participates in all phases of litigation throughout Western Pennsylvania including pleadings, discovery, motions practice, and trial preparation.  Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Taylor worked for a regional defense firm in Pittsburgh where she similarly practiced the defense of mass toxic tort matters.

In 2017, Taylor earned her juris doctor from Duquesne University School of Law. While in law school, she served as president of the Health Law Society from 2015-2017. She also studied international law in the nature of human rights, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution in Belfast and Dublin, Ireland, and worked at a law firm in Frankfurt, Germany after completing her first year of law school.  Taylor held several internships throughout law school, and clerked at a boutique law firm during her final year where she handled plaintiff and defense work under the supervision of practicing attorneys.

Taylor graduated from Duquesne University in 2014 with a Bachelor of Arts after completing her undergraduate coursework in just three years. During that time, she was a member of the Duquesne University Division I Varsity Women's Lacrosse team.

Taylor is admitted to practice law in the state of Pennsylvania.

    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., 2017)
    • Duquesne University (B.A., 2014)
    • Pennsylvania, 2017
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch©, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (2024-2027)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2024-2026)
    • "Appellate Court Reverses $224 Million Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson", Marshall Dennehey Legal Update for Environmental Law, October 2023

Thought Leadership

View all

Defense Digest

Even When You Think You Have The Perfect Jury, You Can Still Be Surprised

September 30, 2026

Key Points: • Jury selection matters, but it is not predictive. Even an attentive and seemingly favorable jury can return an unexpected or internally inconsistent verdict, particularly in complex cases. • Verdict slips deserve careful attention. The structure and wording of a verdict slip can significantly affect the outcome of a case. Clear verdict sheets can be just as important as the evidence presented at trial. • Expect the unexpected. Even the most carefully selected jury can return a surprising verdict. It is a reminder that while jury selection is essential, no panel is ever completely predictable. A recent Pittsburgh trial serves as a stark reminder that even when jury selection has resulted in a seemingly favorable panel, a jury can still deliver an unexpected result. While careful jury selection remains crucial to proper trial preparation, no amount of voir dire completely eliminates the possibility of inconsistent or unpredictable verdicts. In 2023, a lawsuit was filed by Michaeleen Lee in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County against numerous defendants, including Johnson & Johnson, alleging that she developed mesothelioma as a result of her exposure to talcum powder products. The case proceeded to trial in late 2025, continued by her estate after Ms. Lee passed away from her mesothelioma prior to trial. Following a one-and-a-half-month long trial, the jury rendered its verdict. The jury found Johnson & Johnson negligent, but did not find that Johnson & Johnson’s negligence was a factual cause of Ms. Lee’s diagnosis. The jury then shockingly attempted to award $22 million in punitive damages to Ms. Lee’s estate. How could a jury award millions of dollars in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson despite failing to find causation? Looking back, the wording and format of the verdict slip laid the groundwork for juror confusion, and provides a cautionary example of why the selection of a favorable jury may not be enough to ensure success at trial. In its deliberation, the jury found Johnson & Johnson negligent, but did not find that the negligence caused Ms. Lee’s mesothelioma. Further, the jury found that Ms. Lee relied to her detriment upon statements of material fact made by Johnson & Johnson that allegedly concealed or omitted material information about the safety of the product at issue, but did not find that her reliance on those statements caused her mesothelioma. Finally, the jury found that Ms. Lee relied to her detriment on statements or conduct of material fact, intentionally or negligently made by Johnson & Johnson, which misrepresented the safety of the product at issue, but again did not find that her reliance on such statements or conduct of material fact caused her mesothelioma.  The verdict slip required the jurors to answer “yes” to having found that Johnson & Johnson’s negligence, statements of material fact, and/or misrepresentations were a factual cause of Ms. Lee’s mesothelioma diagnosis before they could award punitive damages. The jurors did not do so. Despite not finding causation, the jury still attempted to award Ms. Lee’s estate $22 million in punitive damages. Ultimately, the trial court molded the verdict, finding for Johnson & Johnson and awarding Ms. Lee’s estate no punitive damages.  The decision to mold the verdict found itself before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which just recently issued a non-precedential opinion, affirming the trial court's decision. Because the jury clearly found that Johnson & Johnson's conduct was not a factual cause of Ms. Lee's injuries, the punitive damages award could not stand as a matter of Pennsylvania law. Although the appellate decision focused on correcting a seemingly inconsistent verdict, the case offers a valuable lesson for trial lawyers. Jury selection is critical, but but relying upon the selection of a seemingly favorable jury is insufficient to guarantee success at trial. Even a carefully selected panel may struggle with complex verdict slips, nuanced legal standards such as causation, or the distinction between disapproving of a defendant's conduct and finding that conduct legally caused a plaintiff's injury. Cases involving multiple claims and multiple defendants only increase the likelihood that jurors may reach conclusions that appear difficult to reconcile. For trial counsel, this underscores the importance of not only selecting a thoughtful jury, but also presenting a clear narrative, simplifying complex legal concepts whenever possible, and paying close attention to the structure and wording of the verdict sheet. Taylor is an Associate in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at 412-803-2440 or TEKosko@mdwcg.com.

Legal Updates for Asbestos and Mass Tort Litigation

Appellate Court Reverses $224 Million Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson

October 5, 2023

On October 4, 2023, a panel of three judges in the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed a $224 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson, awarded to a consolidated group of four plaintiffs who alleged their use of the company’s talcum powder products caused them to be diagnosed with cancer. The jury awarded the plaintiffs an aggregate compensatory damages award of $37.3 million and a punitive damages award totaling $186.5 million.  The basis of the reversal was that the trial court did not fulfill its role as a gatekeeper for permitting only reliable expert testimony to be presented to a jury by failing to conduct pre-trial hearings on the scientific methodology and the underlying data relied upon by the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. In the opinion, the Appellate Division reinforced the proper role of the trial court as the gatekeeper of expert witness testimony. Further, the court instructed trial courts to assess both the methodology used by the expert to arrive at an opinion as well as the underlying data used in the formation of the opinion.  Overall, the Appellate Division found that the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing as to the expert testimony, failed to make legal determinations of reliability as to the methodology, and permitted the jury to make credibility determinations as to the quality of the expert testimony instead of first determining whether the expert opinion was based on sound and adequately founded scientific methodology. These errors, the Appellate Division believed, were so “wide off the mark that a manifest denial of justice resulted.” This monumental opinion raises the bar for the standard that plaintiffs must meet in pursuing claims of talc powder exposure against companies such as Johnson & Johnson. Further, it provides an avenue for talc defendants to challenge expert witnesses offering testimony for plaintiffs in a talc case. For obvious reasons, we can expect this opinion to have more of an impact in talc litigation than in asbestos claims, where the scientific methodology of expert witnesses has been studied extensively over its longstanding history. As we are seeing an increasing number of talc cases being filed, the reversal of this $224 million verdict is a useful roadmap for proper expert witness practice as well as a reassuring development for industry clients.   Legal Update for Environmental Law - October 5, 2023, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey Warner. All Rights Reserved.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Reversed Trial Judge's Orders Granting a Plaintiff's Section 40 Summary Judgement Motion

In Haskins v. Casey, et al., the plaintiff Dane Haskins worked for defendant Ekornes, Inc. (Ekornes) as a material handler. In June 2021, he filed a workers’ compensation claim petition for benefits due to a left shoulder injury in December 2020. He then resolved his workers’ compensation claim in November 2022 under an Order Approving Settlement. In January 2023, he filed a lawsuit against Ekornes and later amended to add additional claims and name other defendants, including the Ekornes president, chief financial officer, and director of human resources. In May 2025, a second amended complaint alleged that after he filed the workers compensation claim, Ekornes placed him on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), denied his request for a work accommodation, and ultimately terminated him from employment in December 2021. He pleaded several causes of action asserting violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as well as fraudulent concealment and wrongful discharge. The plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order enforcing Section 40 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) as well as summary judgment on his FMLA claims. The defendants opposed the motions and cross-moved for summary judgment on the FMLA claims. After arguments, the court entered an order in December 2025, denying the FMLA motion and cross motion and granting the plaintiff’s Section 40 motion. In the order, the court permitted the plaintiff to pursue compensatory damages at trial in connection with the bodily injury claim. The court also allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of any workers’ compensation benefits to support his claim. The court then denied the defendant's subsequent reconsideration motion in February 2026. The defendants that appealed the Section 40 aspect of the orders. In reviewing the appeal de novo, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff's argument that the work-related injury arose out of his discrimination claims under the LAD. The plaintiff argued that he should be able to pursue a personal injury claim as a part of his LAD claim, noting that the employer’s compensation carrier would be able to assert a lien against any recovery against his LAD claims. In distinguishing between the Richter vs. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021) case, in which the Court found that any recovery would be subject to a Section 40 lien as the allegation was that the defendants failed to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition, which resulted in bodily injury. In this case, the Appellate Division indicated that there was no bodily injury caused by Ekornes’ failure to accommodate a pre-existing disability. Rather, the shoulder injury was a result of a workers compensation claim, for which he received appropriate benefits previously. The Appellate Division noted that if the plaintiff was successful in proving his LAD claims, he would be entitled to damages caused by the discriminatory discriminatory conduct such as lost wages and emotional distress damages and that there will be no Section 40 lien. In addition, the Appellate Division disagreed that the petitioner could present evidence about and seek damages for his shoulder injury at trial. Although the petitioner argued that a defendant who retaliated against an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim should not benefit from the exclusivity provision of the WCA, the Appellate Division noted that the Legislature did not include this type of scenario in the statue nor did any of the case law recognize this type of claim as a remedy. As such, the Appellate Division reversed the December 2025 order granting the the plaintiff’s Section 40 summary judgment motion as well as the February 2026 reconsideration motion order. The Appellate Division noted that they did not intend to limit the plaintiff in his pursuit of his other claims on under the LAD, FMLA, and workers’ compensation retaliation causes of action.

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law.