.

Michael D. Winsko

Portrait of Michael D. Winsko

Michael Winsko is a shareholder in the Casualty Department whose practice focuses on the defense of corporations, individuals, and local governments in complex civil litigation matters. In this capacity, he has successfully handled numerous high-exposure premises liability, liquor liability, trucking and transportation, products liability, and catastrophic injury/wrongful death actions throughout the state and federal courts of Pennsylvania. As a part of his practice, Mike assists clients in the defense of design and construction defects, trucking/automobile accidents, fall down incidents, and negligent security claims. 

A native of the Pittsburgh area, Mike attended Duquesne University where he received an undergraduate degree in accounting in 2012. Mike then earned his juris doctor from Duquesne University School of Law in 2015. While in law school, Mike interned for Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  He also was a writer and the business managing editor for the Duquesne University School of Law's Business Law Journal. Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Mike worked for a regional firm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania focusing on various areas of civil defense litigation.

    • Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University (J.D., 2015)
    • Duquesne University (B.S., 2012)
    • Pennsylvania, 2015
    • U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 2015
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch©, Transportation Law (2026)
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants (2021-2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star (2023-2025)
    • "Bowman v. Sunoco Inc.: Preserving the Validity of Exculpatory Clauses Within Employment Contracts in Pennslyvania," Duquesne Business Law Journal, Volume 16
    • Obtained a defense verdict following a three-day jury trial in a slip and fall injury case. The plaintiff slipped in the lobby of a commercial building and claimed a serious and ongoing injury to her right shoulder.  Plaintiff alleged she fell due to a wet floor caused by the facilities management’s cleaning process and the lack of sufficient visible wet floor caution signs. Plaintiff underwent two surgeries, claimed ongoing pain and suffering, and sought $500,000 prior to trial. We represented the building ownership and the facilities management company. Problematic for the defense was the lack of a surveillance video of the incident, photographs of the lobby contemporaneous to the incident, or an incident report.  Despite this, we persuaded the jury to find for the Defense by establishing a consistent and credible history of habitual practice in the placement of wet floor signs across the lobby in highly visible areas.  We also won the credibility battle through our well-prepared witnesses.  Although faced with a sympathetic plaintiff with a substantiated history of medical treatment, we succeeded by presenting the case using “old school” personal injury defense tactics that were necessary due to the lack of video, photographs, and documentation.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a construction company arising out of a fall down incident based on plaintiff’s status at the time he entered the premises.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a construction company relating to work performed on a commercial property in relation to alleged deficient barricades pertaining to a work site
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a local agency relating to a trip and fall incident based on governmental immunity.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of an insurer relating to exclusion language within the insurance policy.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a school district and a township involving a catastrophic claim and the placement of a jersey barrier under Pennsylvania’s Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a construction company pursuant to the statutory employer doctrine in relation to a job site injury of a subcontractor.
    • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a restaurant in relation to a premise liability matter concerning an employee of one if its affiliated companies.

Results

Defense Verdict Following Jury Trial in Slip and Fall Case in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.

The plaintiff slipped in the lobby of a commercial building and claimed a serious and ongoing injury to her right shoulder. She alleged she fell due to a wet floor caused by the facilities management’s cleaning process and the lack of sufficient visible wet floor caution signs. The plaintiff underwent two surgeries, claimed ongoing pain and suffering, and sought $500,000 prior to trial.  We represented the building ownership and the facilities management company. Problematic for the defense was the lack of a surveillance video of the incident, photographs of the lobby contemporaneous to the incident, or an incident report. Despite this, we persuaded the jury to find for the defense by establishing a consistent and credible history of habitual practice in the placement of wet floor signs in highly visible areas across the lobby.  We also won the credibility battle through our well-prepared witnesses. Although faced with a sympathetic plaintiff with a substantiated history of medical treatment, our attorneys succeeded by presenting the case using “old school” personal injury defense tactics that were necessary due to the lack of video, photographs, and documentation. 

Defense Verdict Secured in Slip-and-Fall Jury Trial

We obtained a defense verdict following a three-day jury trial in a slip-and-fall injury case in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. The plaintiff slipped in the allegedly wet lobby of a commercial building and claimed a serious and ongoing injury to her right shoulder. Problematic for our case was the lack of a surveillance video of the incident, photographs of the lobby contemporaneous to the incident, or an incident report. Despite this, we persuaded the jury to find for the defense by establishing a consistent and credible history of habitual practice in the placement of wet floor signs across the lobby in highly visible areas. 

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.