.

Taylor E. Kosko

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©, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants (2026)
    • The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch©, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (2024-2026)
    • 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

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.

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.