was to demonstrate that defendant Legion had acted improperly by not fairly and diligently investigating plaintiffs claim. Defendants further contend this line of questioning was irrelevant and improperly influenced the jury, resulting in prejudicial error which prevented defendants from receiving a fair trial. A review of the record reveals that when plaintiff called Von Eschen to testify, defendant Legion objected, which was overruled. However, defendant Legion failed to object to any of plaintiffs questions to Von Eschen. Our Supreme Court and this Court have held that even though a motion in limine is granted, appropriate objections must be made at trial to preserve the question of admissibility of the evidence on appeal. See State v. Hayes, 350 N.C. 79, 511 S.E.2d 302 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Nunnery v. Baucom, 135 N.C. App. 586, 521
holding defendant failed to preserve burden of proof issue for appeal holding that the defendant waived the issue on appeal when he failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of such evidence at trial holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal holding motion in limine is insufficient to preserve question of admissibility of evidence if movant fails to further object when it is offered holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial