With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. In his order, Judge New ordered the Association to limit the presentation of its damages to only those incurred within three years of the commencement of its action. Appellants maintain the Association presented damages incurred as early as 1979, although Judge New specifically ordered the Association to present damages “incurred” from 2002 to 2005. Appellants argue there is a difference between when the damages were “incurred” and when damages were “manifested.” Appellants failed to raise the compliance objection contemporaneously during trial when these alleged violations of Judge Few’s order occurred. Therefore, this issue is not preserved for our review. State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) (<HOLDING>). III. Expert Witness Testimony Appellants

A: holding a broad and noncontemporaneous objection is not enough to properly preserve an error for appellate review
B: holding timely and sufficiently specific objection is required to preserve error
C: holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal
D: holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review
A.