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.
Thought Leadership
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.
