With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by the trial court. The motion in limine precluded plaintiff from: eliciting testimony, through deposition or at trial, of Legion representatives until after a period of time sufficient to allow Legion, as a newly intervening party, a fair and adequate opportunity to prepare for trial. Legion also moves this [c]ourt for an [o]rder in [ljimine precluding the [pjlaintiff in this action from introducing new claims not raised in the complaint or agreed to in the pre-trial order. Defendants contend this motion was violated because plaintiffs counsel only questioned Von Eschen about the method by which defendant Legion processed claims and handled lawsuits and did not ask of him any questions regarding this accident. Defendants assert plaintiff’s strategy in asking these qu d 479 (1999) (<HOLDING>); and Martin v. Benson, 348 N.C. 684, 500

A: holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered
B: 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
C: recognizing a ruling sustaining a motion in limine merely adds a procedural step to the offer of evidence and that if the evidence is not offered there is nothing preserved to review on appeal
D: holding motion in limine is insufficient to preserve question of admissibility of evidence if movant fails to further object when it is offered
D.