About Paul Perkins
Paul Perkins has practiced law for more than twenty five years, handling complex personal injury, wrongful death and professional malpractice cases along with business disputes and criminal defense. He represents plaintiffs in fraud, qui tam and consumer protection matters, injured workers in claims against third parties, and both plaintiffs and defendants in disputes involving contracts, misrepresentation, insurance bad faith and insurance coverage.
Perkins is one of the few lawyers in Vermont to obtain a punitive damages award in a personal injury case and have it upheld on appeal, in Carpentier v. Tuthill, 2013 VT 91 (2013). He has also convinced Vermont trial courts to hear claims under the state's Consumer Protection Act against insurers that failed to pay benefits, in Blake v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co. and White River Traffic Group, Inc. v. United Ohio Insurance Co.
Before joining Plante & Hanley, Perkins served as a U.S. Navy Special Warfare and Special Operations deep sea diver. He is a former chair of the Insurance Law Section of the Vermont Bar Association, an adjunct professor of intensive trial practice at Vermont Law and Graduate School, and gives annual ethics lectures at Dartmouth College.
Proven verdicts and settlements at Plante & Hanley, P.C.
These results are credited to Plante & Hanley, P.C.. A result appears under an attorney's own name only when a published source names them as counsel on the case.
On September 9, 1990, James Ulm was riding as a passenger in a 1978 Ford Bronco on a dirt road above Wilmington, Vermont, when the driver lost steering control and the Bronco rolled, breaking Ulm's back and leaving him paralyzed from the waist down. Ulm sued Ford Motor Company, arguing the Bronco's steering system was defectively designed, and a Windham Superior Court jury returned a $1,250,000 verdict in his favor. After the trial court credited pretrial settlements and added prejudgment interest, the final judgment rose to $1,290,460.52. Ford appealed, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full, also rejecting a subrogation claim brought by Ulm's health plan.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each case is unique and depends on its own facts.