Lauren is a shareholder in the Casualty Department. She concentrates her practice in the areas of product liability, premises liability, auto liability, and construction law. Lauren's litigation experience includes assisting in the management of discovery during the course of litigation, as well as drafting and arguing dispositive motions. Lauren participated in Marshall Dennehey's pro bono program where she was responsible for a social security disability appeal case. Further, Lauren has represented corporate entities at the arbitration and magistrate levels.
Lauren earned her Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Pittsburgh in Psychology, Political Science, and Anthropology, cum laude. Prior to law school, Lauren was an assistant buyer for Anthropologie. She received her juris doctor from the University of Pittsburgh, cum laude, in 2013. While in law school, Lauren served as a legal writing teaching assistant and as an editorial board member of the Journal of Law and Commerce. Prior to graduating from law school, Lauren served as a judicial intern for the Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and also as a legal intern for the legal department of Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.
Prior to joining the firm, Lauren served as a judicial law clerk with the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County.
Lauren is admitted into practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Her memberships include the Pennsylvania and Allegheny County Bar Associations, and the W. Edward Sell American Inn of Court.
Honors & Awards
•The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, Construction Law; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants (2021-2025)
Published Works
•'A Post-'Sullivan' World Requires a Strong Expert Report,' The Legal Intelligencer, April 17, 2025
•'Protecting Your Bar From Claims in the Wake of 'Mortimer', The Legal Intelligencer, Liquor Law Supplement, February 15, 2023
•'Employers (Still) Not Liable For Serving Alcohol to Intoxicated Employees,' The Legal Intelligencer, Liquor Law Supplement, February 10, 2022
•“Winning the Golden Ticket: Ownership of Terminal-Printed Lottery Tickets,” Defense Digest, June 2021, Vol. 27, No. 3
•'Should Mandatory Liquor Liability Insurance Be in PA's Future?' The Legal Intelligencer Liquor Law Supplement, February 25, 2020
•Note, A Fashion Flop: The Innovative Design Protection and Privacy Prevention Act, 31 J.L. & COM. 203 (2013)
Pro Bono Activities
•Marshall Dennehey's Social Security Disability Pro Bono Program
Results
Summary Judgment Secured in a Neighborhood Dispute Alleging Excess Water Runoff
We obtained summary judgment in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas in favor of our clients in a dispute over alleged excess water runoff. Our clients, a married couple, were sued by their neighbors for claims related to water runoff due to the installation of gutters and downspouts on a shed near the property line. We effectively argued for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ injunction, trespass, nuisance and negligence claims, demonstrating that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary expert testimony to substantiate their case as required under Pennsylvania law. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ negligence claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, which had expired at least six years before the suit was filed.
Summary Judgment for Wellhead Manufacturer
We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a wellhead manufacturer in a product liability matter pending in Western Pennsylvania. The plaintiff drill operator alleged a wellhead was defectively designed, causing oil and gas to escape during operation, which led to a fire at the well site. The plaintiff asserted economic losses in excess of $1.4 million. We successfully argued that the plaintiff failed to elicit sufficient expert opinion to support the defect claim and also spoliated evidence in discarding the subject wellhead.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Superior Court Affirms Summary Judgment for Landlord: Lack of Expert Testimony on Fire’s Cause Defeats Negligence Claim
January 1, 2026
The plaintiff tenants filed negligence claims against the defendant landlord stemming from a fire that occurred in their rented home. The landlord filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs appealed.In deciding the appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie cause of action for negligence by failing to introduce expert testimony to confirm the cause and origin of the fire. The Superior Court noted that the trial court properly found that the fire report did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate cause and origin. The court also noted that the trial court properly held that inadmissible hearsay statements from a responding firefighter could not be used to support the plaintiffs’ negligence claims. The court further noted that a spoliation sanction was not necessary as the record demonstrated that the plaintiffs had an opportunity to conduct a site inspection of the fire-damaged premises before repairs.Since the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence in support of a prima facie cause of action for negligence, the Superior Court ruled that summary judgment in the defendant landlord’s favor was warranted. As such, the court affirmed the trial court’s order.
Case Law Alerts
Superior Court Vacates Termination of Premises Liability Case: Lack of Proper Notice Under Rules 230.2 and 236
January 1, 2026
The plaintiff filed a premises liability action against a hospital which was commenced by a writ of summons. After a period of inaction, the trial court terminated and dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to local rule 230.2. Months later, the plaintiff filed a petition to reinstate her case under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2, which the trial court denied. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that, as she never received notice, the termination was improper. The plaintiff also argued that the 60-day period for seeking reinstatement did not begin until the notice requirements were satisfied; thus, reinstatement of the case was mandatory under Rule 230.2(d)(2).In deciding the appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that there was insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the notice of the proposed termination was served by mail on the plaintiff in accordance with Rule 230.2(b). The court reasoned that the trial court’s docket entry relative to notice did not include any reference to method of service, whether service was carried out in accordance with the governing procedural rules related to service, or any certificates of service. While the trial court’s docket entry vaguely alluded to some kind of notice, Rule 230.2 was not satisfied. As such, the court held that termination of the case was improper.The Superior Court also held that the record did not establish that the County’s prothonotary sent a Rule 236 notice that the order of termination had been entered. The Superior Court held that “‘[a] prothonotary’s failure to comply with Rule 236, governing notice, means that the filing period for a responsive motion was never triggered, and, therefore, a subsequent motion and order denying that motion are legal nullities.” The court ruled that the prothonotary filed to satisfy the notice requirements of Rule 236 and, thus, the 60-day window for filing a petition for reinstatement never began to run. The court held that the case had to be reinstated upon the plaintiff’s filing of her petition. The Court ruled that the trial court’s order denying reinstatement was a legal nullity, and “to remedy that error,” the order must be vacated.
News
Marshall Dennehey Celebrates 25th Anniversary of Advanced Trial Advocacy & Mock Trial Program
July 15, 2025
