Susan Boyles focuses her practice on tort defense, complex commercial litigation and insurance coverage disputes. She regularly represents clients before state and federal court judges throughout North Carolina, on both the trial and appellate court levels.
Ms. Boyles was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law, Banking & Finance Litigation, Insurance Litigation and Personal Injury Litigation in 2018 and the 11 years immediately preceding. She was also named a 2016 and 2018 "Greensboro Lawyer of the Year" in the area of Insurance Litigation and also in 2017 for Insurance Law by The Best Lawyers in America®. Ms. Boyles was listed in the 2007 and 2008 editions of Business North Carolina’s “Legal Elite.” In 2014 and 2016, she was recommended by Legal 500 US in the area of Trade Secrets Litigation. Ms. Boyles was recognized as a member of the inaugural class of the North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society for providing more than 50 hours of pro bono legal service in 2016. She was the 2005 winner of the "Women In Business" Award from The Business Journal and is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
*CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedure's standards and policies.
Representing Plaintiff Neusoft Medical Systems, U.S.A., Inc. in a lawsuit involving claims of conversion, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, misappropriation of trade secrets, unjust enrichment, and violation of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case also has significant issues regarding the enforcement of international arbitration agreements and the relationship between a Chinese medical equipment manufacturer and a U.S. distributor. Neusoft Medical Systems, U.S.A., Inc. v. Neuisys, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 11-CVS-11405 (Guilford County Superior Court).
Represented McGriff Seibels & Williams Inc. (McGriff), a retail insurance broker, against claims of negligence and breach of contract for alleged failure to procure insurance coverage for a client that suffered a fire loss. The wholesale broker and insurance carrier that wrote the policy were also named as defendants, and they asserted cross claims against McGriff. After extensive discovery, the court granted McGriff's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. A confidential settlement was reached before trial.
Defended Broyhill Furniture Industries, Inc. (Broyhill) in breach of contract claim arising from allegations that Broyhill refused to pay the plaintiff for heat provided to a warehouse used by Broyhill. The case involved novel issues of contract interpretation and damages theories. The court granted our motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint to allege extra-contractual theories of recovery, which resulted in a dismissal of all claims against our client. The Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed summary judgement for Broyhill. The plaintiff appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which issued a unanimous opinion adopting the COA’s majority decision and affirming summary judgment for Broyhill. Micro Capital Investors, Inc. v. Broyhill Furniture Indus., Inc., 728 S.E. 2d 376 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012), aff'd., 736 S.E.2d 172 (N.C. 2013).
Represented Lowe’s Companies, Inc. and LG Sourcing in suit brought by a tool vendor in Iredell County Superior Court alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit, and unfair and deceptive trade practices, based on deductions Lowe’s made to the vendor’s account for short-fill penalties and early payments by Lowe’s, as well as Lowe’s alleged failure to pay certain invoices. Walter Meier (Manufacturing), Inc. f/k/a WMH Tool Group, Inc. v. Lowe’s Cos., Inc., 10 CVS 03678 (Iredell County Superior Court).
Defended BB&T against claims for fraudulent concealment and unfair and deceptive trade practices related to funding it provided for real estate transactions in the Village of Penland. The Court granted BB&T’s motion to dismiss all claims prior to any discovery. Randy A. Carpenter v. Branch Banking and Trust Company, et al., Civil Action No. 13-CVS-239 (Avery County Superior Court).
Represented Lowe’s, its subsidiaries, and one of its individual employees in a case alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and interference with prospective contract. The plaintiff, a vendor of Lowe’s, alleged that Lowe’s improperly and prematurely terminated its contract for services, which caused it to lose $3 million per year in revenue. Lowe’s successfully enforced the arbitration clause in the contract, and the court sent the case to arbitration. The Arbitrator granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss all claims prior to a hearing on the merits.
Represented ABT Building Products Corp. and ABT Co. Inc., one of the largest manufacturers of building materials in North America, and working with another firm, obtained a jury verdict of more than $18 million in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Statesville Division). ABT sought coverage under a three-year umbrella policy issued by National Union with respect to numerous class actions and individual lawsuits alleging defects in hardboard siding manufactured by ABT. The jury awarded our clients $2.5 million for breach of contract, $3.9 million for unfair and deceptive trade practices, $3.9 million for bad faith and $7.5 million in punitive damages for the carrier’s bad faith denial of coverage, misrepresentation of policy terms and failure to effectuate a prompt and fair settlement of the underlying lawsuit. The trial judge trebled the unfair and deceptive portion of the award and granted our clients’ motion for nearly $2 million in attorney fees. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. ABT Bldg. Prod. Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Inc., 472 F. 3d 99 (4th Cir. 2006).
Represented Lincoln Financial Media Company as plaintiff in a complex contract matter arising from the merger of Jefferson Pilot Corporation with Lincoln Financial Corporation and subsequent name change. CBS contended that the corporate transaction extinguished its contractual duty to make promotional payments to Lincoln Financial Media Company. The court entered summary judgment in our client's favor. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Lincoln Fin. Media Co. v. CBS Broad., Inc., (4th Cir. 2009); Lincoln Fin. Media Co. v. CBS Broad., Inc., No. 3:07-cv-00062-MR-CH (W.D.N.C.).
The firm served as co-counsel for Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. defending claims of breach of contract, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and other causes of action arising from a decision not to grant area development rights to petitioners in northern California. Arbitration award is confidential.
Represented retailer and manufacturer of manufactured homes in case where the plaintiff alleged fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, violation of usury laws, violation of federal disclosure laws regarding formaldehyde, negligence, personal injuries, breach of contract, breach of warranty and related claims arising from the purchase of a manufactured home and development of a lot. The plaintiff sought compensatory, punitive and treble damages. The manufacturer was dismissed on a summary judgment motion. The remaining claims were tried and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the retailer on the breach of contract and fraud claims. The jury found for the plaintiff on the breach of warranty claim and Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices claim. A favorable settlement was reached following the verdict.
Defended BB&T against claims of “wrongful foreclosure” and a preliminary injunction related to BB&T’s foreclosure on residential real property and its subsequent resale. The Court granted BB&T’s motion for summary judgment on all claims after limited discovery. One West Bank v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. et al., Civil Action No. 12-CVS-10554 (Guilford County Superior Court).
Represented Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, an insurance carrier, in a dispute with another carrier in a subrogation claim arising from a fire loss where the policy involved a unique question of law concerning drop-down limits for a particular kind of loss.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, J.D. (1994) with honors, Order of the Coif
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, B.A., Journalism (1990) with highest honors, Phi Beta Kappa
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
North Carolina Bar Association, 1994-Present
Insurance Law Section Council, 2013-2015
CLE Course Planner for 2016 Annual Meeting
Professionalism Committee, 2011-Present
Litigation Section Member, 1994-Present
Litigation Section Council, 1997-2002
Chair, Litigation Council Subcommittee on Civil Practice and Procedure, 1997-99
Member, Litigation Council Subcommittee on Civil Practice and Procedure, 1999-2002
Young Lawyers Division Third-Grade Education Project, 1999-2003
North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, 1996-Present
Children's Law Center of Central North Carolina
Board Member, 2015-Present
Volunteer Guardian Ad Litem Attorney, 2005-Present
Defense Research Institute, 1997-Present
Forsyth County Bar Association, 1994-Present
Wrote Bar Exam Questions for North Carolina Board of Law Examiners, 1999-2002
Barrister, Joseph Branch Inn of Court, 1999-2001
Maple Springs United Methodist Church
Board of Trustees
Chair, Safe Sanctuaries Committee
Children’s Sunday School Teacher
National Spasmodic Dysphonia Association
Area Contact Person
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.