NEWBY, Justice.
The issue is whether, in a condemnation action, the jury may consider quantified lost business profits in determining the fair market value of the land on which the business is located. Applying our well-[3]*3established case law, we hold it may not, and accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and order a new trial.
I. BACKGROUND
To safely accommodate increased traffic and promote public safety, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (“DOT”) proposed improvements at the intersection of Garrett Road and Durham-Chapel Hill Road in Durham County. When DOT and landowner M.M. Fowler, Inc. (“MMFI”) were unable to agree on a purchase price, DOT filed an eminent domain action to condemn a portion of MMFI’s land for the construction project. MMFI’s property, originally 47,933 square feet, contains a gasoline station and convenience store, which MMFI pays an independent contractor to operate. The DOT improvement project necessitated a 13,039-square-foot right-of-way as well as a 1,664-square-foot slope easement and a 6,166-square-foot temporary construction easement. After the permanent taking, the remaining property totaled 34,894 square feet.
In its complaint, DOT requested a determination of just compensation for the taking in accordance with Article 9 of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes. Concurrently, DOT deposited $166,850 with the Durham County Superior Court as its estimate of just compensation. MMFI answered and demanded a jury trial.
Prior to trial, DOT filed a motion in limine asking the court to exclude, inter alia, “[e]vidence concerning loss of profits or income, loss of business, loss of goodwill, or interruption of business.” The trial court initially allowed the motion “until [it] should rule otherwise.” At trial, the court heard arguments from both parties on the issues and ultimately denied DOT’s motion in limine. However, the trial court gave the following limiting instruction purportedly derived from Kirkman v. State Highway Commission, 257 N.C. 428, 432, 126 S.E.2d 107, 110 (1962):
“[L]oss of profits or injury to a growing business conducted on property or connected therewith are not elements of recoverable damages in an award for the taking under the power of eminent domain. However, when the taking renders the remaining land unfit or less valuable for any use to which it is adapted, that factor is a proper item to be considered in determining whether the taking has diminished the value of the land itself.”
MMFI’s witnesses estimated the loss in value caused by the taking to be between $500,000 and $540,000. These estimates were based [4]*4solely on capitalization of the company’s alleged lost business profits. DOT’s evidence indicated MMFI was entitled to approximately $169,000 to $225,700. The jury returned a verdict awarding $375,000 as damages for the permanent taking and $75,000 for the temporary construction and slope easements. On 8 October 2003, the trial court entered a judgment awarding MMFI a total of $450,000 plus interest from the date of the complaint until the date of judgment.
DOT appealed the jury’s verdict on the permanent taking, arguing the trial court improperly admitted lost profits evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that, although our case law generally forbids evidence of lost profits, Kirkman creates a limited exception in a partial taking when access to the remaining property is restricted or denied. DOT v. M.M. Fowler, Inc., 170 N.C. App. 162, 165-66, 611 S.E.2d 448, 450-51 (2005). We allowed DOT’S petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s admission of lost profits evidence.
II. CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
Our Court has stated:
The right to take private property for public use, the power of eminent domain, is one of the prerogatives of a sovereign state. The right is inherent in sovereignty; it is not conferred by constitutions. Its exercise, however, is limited by the constitutional requirements of due process and payment of just compensation for property condemned.
State v. Core Banks Club Props., Inc., 275 N.C. 328, 334, 167 S.E.2d 385, 388 (1969) (citing Redevelopment Comm’n v. Hagins, 258 N.C. 220, 128 S.E.2d 391 (1962)). Both the state and federal constitutions limit the State’s power of eminent domain. North Carolina’s Constitution protects the rights of property owners through the “Law of the Land Clause,” which provides that “[n]o person shall be . . . deprived of his . . . property, but by the law of the land.” N.C. Const, art. I, § 19; see also McKinney v. Deneen, 231 N.C. 540, 542, 58 S.E.2d 107, 109 (1950) (citing N.C. Const. of 1868, art. I, § 17, the predecessor of the current N.C. Const. art. I, § 19). In other words, although the State can condemn land for public use, the owner must be justly compensated. As Professor John V. Orth has noted: “ ‘Notwithstanding there is no clause in the Constitution of North Carolina which expressly prohibits private property from being taken for public use without compensation . . ., yet the principle is so [5]*5grounded in natural equity that it has never been denied to be a part of the law of North Carolina.’ ” John V. Orth, The North Carolina State Constitution 58 (Univ. of N.C. Press 1995) (1993) (quoting Johnston v. Rankin, 70 N.C. 441, 442, 70 N.C. 550, 555 (1874) (alterations in original)). Similarly, the Federal Constitution guards the due process rights of property owners through the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (“[N]or shall any State . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”); see also Sale v. State Highway & Pub. Works Comm’n, 242 N.C. 612, 617, 89 S.E.2d 290, 295 (1955).
Although the State possesses the power of eminent domain by virtue of its sovereignty, “the right. . . lies dormant. . . until the legislature, by statute, confers the power and points out the occasion, mode, conditions and agencies for its exercise.” Core Banks, 275 N.C. at 334, 167 S.E.2d at 389. Chapter 136 of the General Statutes codifies the statutory scheme authorizing condemnation by DOT for our state’s system of roadways. Section 136-18 permits DOT to acquire land necessary for highways “by gift, purchase, or otherwise.” N.C.G.S. § 136-18(2) (2005). Article 9 sets forth the procedure for acquiring land by condemnation. These proceedings commence when DOT files a complaint and declaration of taking accompanied by a deposit of the estimated just compensation in the superior court in the county where the land is located. Id. § 136-103(a) (2005). DOT must include in its complaint, inter alia, a prayer for determination of just compensation. Id. § 136-103(c) (2005). Upon filing and deposit, title to the land vests in DOT. Id. § 136-104 (2005). The right to just compensation vests in the landowner, who may apply to the court for disbursement of the deposit, file an answer requesting a determination of just compensation, or both. Id. §§ 136-104, -105, -106 (2005).
The statutes provide that just compensation includes damages for the taking of property rights plus interest on the amount by which the damages exceed DOT’s deposit. Id. §§ 136-112, -113 (2005). When DOT condemns only part of a tract of land, just compensation consists of the difference between the fair market value of the entire tract immediately before the taking (“before value”) and the fair market value of the land remaining immediately after the taking (“after value”). Id. § 136-112(1).
Although Chapter 136 offers no guidance on the calculation of fair market value, this Court has recognized:
[6]*6[T]he well established rule is that in determining fair market value the essential inquiry is, “what is the property worth in the market, viewed not merely with reference to the uses to which it is at the time applied, but with reference to the uses to which it is plainly adapted — that is to say, what is it worth from its availability for all valuable uses?”
State v. Johnson, 282 N.C. 1, 14, 191 S.E.2d 641, 651 (1972) (quoting Barnes v. Highway Comm’n, 250 N.C. 378, 387, 109 S.E.2d 219, 227 (1959) (alteration in original)); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1587 (8th ed. 2004) (defining “fair market value” as “[t]he price that a seller is willing to accept and a buyer is willing to pay on the open market and in an arm’s-length transaction”). In most instances, landowners seek to prove fair market value through the testimony of the owners themselves and that of appraisers offered as expert witnesses. See, e.g., N.C. State Highway Comm’n v. Helderman, 285 N.C. 645, 207 S.E.2d 720 (1974). An opinion concerning property’s fair market value must not rely in material degree on factors that cannot legally be considered. Id. at 655-56, 207 S.E.2d at 727. Likewise, regardless of professional qualifications, an expert’s opinion must be reasonably reliable. DOT v. Haywood Cty., 360 N.C. 349, 352, 626 S.E.2d 645, 647 (2006) (holding the trial court properly excluded the testimony of three “experienced” expert appraisers because “the testimony lacked sufficient reliability”). To resolve this case, we must decide whether MMFI’s witnesses improperly based their opinions on alleged lost business profits and if so, whether the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of such evidence despite its limiting instruction.
III. ADMISSIBILITY OF LOST BUSINESS PROFITS EVIDENCE
A. The Pemberton Framework
During a proceeding to determine just compensation in a partial taking, the trial court should admit any relevant evidence that will assist the jury in calculating the fair market value of property and the diminution in value caused by condemnation. Abernathy v. S. & W. Ry. Co., 150 N.C. 80, 89, 150 N.C. 97, 108-09, 63 S.E. 180, 185 (1908). Admission of evidence that does not help the jury calculate the fair market value of the land or diminution in its value may “confuse the minds of the jury, and should be excluded.” Id. at 89, 150 N.C. at 109, 63 S.E. at 185. In particular, specific evidence of a landowner’s noncompensable losses following condemnation is inadmissible. Templeton v. State Highway Comm’n, 254 N.C. 337, 339-40, 118 S.E.2d 918, 920-21 (1961) (finding trial court erred in admitting evi[7]*7dence of the cost of silt and mud removal because “it [was] possible that the jury could have gotten the impression that the removal. . . was compensable as a separate item of damage”).
Injury to a business, including lost profits, is one such noncompensable loss. It is important to note that revenue derived directly from the condemned property itself, such as rental income, is distinct from profits of a business located on the property. Compare 5 Julius L. Sackman et al., Nichols on Eminent Domain § 19.02-.05 (rev. 3d ed. 2006) [hereinafter 5 Nichols] (discussing rental income and the capitalization thereof as a permissible appraisal method for determining the fair market value of condemned land), with id. § 19-06 (devoting a separate section of the treatise to “Income from a Business” and articulating the general rule that “the amount of profit earned from a business conducted on the condemned property is ordinarily not admissible in evidence”); see also id. § 19.02, at 19-11 (“While rents are within the broad category of business profits, they are not subject to the general rule denying admission of business profits as evidence on the issue of property value.”). This case is concerned with lost business profits. When evidence of income is used to valúate property, “care must be taken to distinguish between income from the property and income from the business conducted on the property.” 4 Julius L. Sackman et al., Nichols on Eminent Domain § 12B.09, 12B-56 to -59 (rev. 3d ed. 2006) [hereinafter 4 Nichols]. The dissent fails to make this distinction throughout its discussion of the law and analysis of the case sub judice.
The longstanding rule in North Carolina is that evidence of lost business profits is inadmissible in condemnation actions, as this Court articulated in Pemberton v. City of Greensboro, 208 N.C. 466, 470-72, 181 S.E. 258, 260-61 (1935). In Pemberton, the plaintiffs brought an action seeking damages for wrongful appropriation of land containing their dairy farm. Id. at 467, 181 S.E. at 258. Overflow and runoff from the city’s newly constructed sewage treatment plant infected the plaintiffs’ cows with anthrax, destroying their entire dairy business. Id. At trial, the plaintiffs introduced evidence of milk production and approximate monthly earnings before the incident. 208 N.C. at 468, 181 S.E. at 259.
The trial court overruled the city’s objections to this testimony but did give multiple limiting instructions. Id. at 467-69, 181 S.E. at 258-59. In particular, the trial court told the jury not to consider the plaintiffs’ evidence “ ‘as any measure of damages’ ” and specified that the testimony was allowed only for the jury to have the “ ‘entire situ[8]*8ation’ ” before it. Id. at 468, 181 S.E. at 259. In the jury charge, the trial court instructed that “ ‘evidence tending to show the earnings and production of plaintiffs’ dairying proposition ... is not admissible as tending to show the measure of damages, but to aid ... in estimating the extent of the injury sustained.’ ’,"1 Id. Despite the trial court’s admonitions, our Court concluded it was “manifest from the court’s rulings and the jury’s verdict that plaintiffs [were] awarded compensation for the loss of their dairy business.” 208 N.C. at 470, 181 S.E. at 260. Thus, the city was entitled to a new trial. Id. at 472, 181 S.E. at 261.
In holding the limiting instructions were insufficient, this Court specifically noted the trial court’s efforts to place the “ ‘entire situation’ ” before the jury were “at variance with the rule for the []measurement of damages in compensation cases.” Id. at 470, 181 S.E. at 260 (citing Gray v. City of High Point, 203 N.C. 756, 166 S.E. 911 (1932)). Leading up to Pemberton, our Court had consistently stated that when government takes property, “the damages are confined to the diminished pecuniary value of the property incident to the wrong.” Moser v. City of Burlington, 162 N.C. 116, 118, 162 N.C. 141, 144, 78 S.E. 74, 75 (1913) (emphasis added) (citing Metz v. City of Asheville, 150 N.C. 613, 150 N.C. 748, 64 S.E. 881 (1909)); see Gray v. City of High Point, 203 N.C. 756, 764, 166 S.E. 911, 915 (1932); Cook v. Town of Mebane, 191 N.C. 1, 11, 131 S.E. 407, 412 (1926); Metz v. City of Asheville, 150 N.C. 613, 615-16, 150 N.C. 748, 751, 64 S.E. 881, 882 (1909); Williams v. Town of Greenville, 130 N.C. 65, 68, 130 N.C. 93, 97, 40 S.E. 977, 978 (1902).
In Pemberton, this Court adopted the reasoning behind the rule prohibiting lost business profits evidence articulated by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes when he served on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts:
“It generally has been assumed, we think, that injury to a business is not an appropriation of property which must be paid for. There are many serious pecuniary injuries which may be inflicted without compensation. It would be impracticable to forbid all laws which might result in such damage, unless they provided a quid, pro quo. No doubt a business may be property in a broad sense of the word, and property of great value. It may be assumed for the purposes of this case that there might be such a taking of it as required compensation. But a business is less tangible in [9]*9nature and more uncertain in its vicissitudes than the rights which the Constitution undertakes absolutely to protect. It seems to us, in like manner, that the diminution of its value is a vaguer injury than the taking or appropriation with which the Constitution deals. A business might be destroyed by the construction of a more popular street into which travel was diverted, as well as by competition, but there would be as little claim in the one case as in the other.”
Pemberton, 208 N.C. at 470, 181 S.E. at 260 (quoting Sawyer v. Commonwealth, 182 Mass. 245, 247, 65 N.E. 52, 53 (1902)). Justice Holmes’s words underscore why excluding damages for lost business profits is sound policy. Constitutional mandates require that the government pay just compensation. Sale, 242 N.C. at 617, 89 S.E.2d at 295. They do not require expenditure of taxpayer funds for losses remote from governmental action or too speculative to calculate with certainty. See Pemberton, 208 N.C. at 471, 181 S.E. at 260-61.
Just compensation “ ‘is not the value to the owner for his particular purposes.’ ” Williams v. State Highway Comm’n, 252 N.C. 141, 146, 113 S.E.2d 263, 267 (1960) (quoting United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U.S. 372, 377, 66 S. Ct. 596, 599, 90 L. Ed. 729, 734 (1946)). Awarding damages for lost profits would provide excess compensation for a successful business owner while a less prosperous one or an individual landowner without a business would receive less money for the same taking. Indeed, if business revenues were considered in determining land values, an owner whose business is losing money could receive less than the land is worth. Limiting damages to the fair market value of the land prevents unequal treatment based upon the use of the real estate at the time of condemnation. Further, paying business owners for lost business profits in a partial taking results in inequitable treatment of the business owner whose entire property is taken, in which case lost profits clearly are not considered. See Williams, 252 N.C. at 148, 113 S.E.2d at 269.
Evidence of lost business profits is impermissible because recovery of the same is not allowed. 5 Nichols § 19.06[1], at 19-36. Additionally, the speculative nature of profits makes them improper bases for condemnation awards as they
depend on too many contingencies to be accepted as evidence of the usable value of the property upon which the business is carried on. Profits depend upon the times, the amount of capital invested, the social, religious and financial position in the com[10]*10munity of the one carrying it on, and many other elements which might be suggested. What one man might do at a profit, another might only do at a loss. Further, even if the owner has made profits from the business in the past it does not necessarily follow that these profits will continue in the future.
Id. § 19.06[1], at 19-37 to -38 (footnotes omitted). Recognizing that profits can rarely be traced to a single factor, business executives rely on complex models to determine profitability. See, e.g., Michael E. Porter, How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy, 57 Harv. Bus. Rev. 137 (1979) (detailing Porter’s widely accepted “five forces model” that asserts profitability is affected by five factors, each of which includes myriad subfactors). Further, the uncertain character of lost business profits evidence could burden taxpayers with inflated jury awards bearing little relationship to the condemned land’s fair market value.
Moreover, our well-established North Carolina rule prohibiting lost business profits evidence comports with the federal rule. See United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U.S. 372, 377-78, 66 S. Ct. 596, 599, 90 L. Ed. 729, 734-35 (1946) (“Since ‘market value’ does not fluctuate with the needs of condemnor or condemnee but with general demand for the property, evidence of loss of profits, damage to good will, the expense of relocation and other such consequential losses are refused in federal condemnation proceedings.”); see also Mitchell v. United States, 267 U.S. 341, 344-45, 45 S. Ct. 293, 294, 69 L. Ed. 644, 648 (1925); Joslin Mfg. Co. v. City of Providence, 262 U.S. 668, 675, 43 S. Ct. 684, 688, 67 L. Ed. 1167, 1174 (1923).
Notwithstanding the dissent’s contention to the contrary, this Court’s rule also accords with the holdings of the majority of states applying the common law in condemnation proceedings. See 4 Nichols § 12B.09[1], at 12B-59 (“It is . . . well settled that evidence of the profits of a business conducted upon land taken for the public use is not admissible in proceedings for the determination of the compensation which the owner of the land shall receive.”).
In summary, the prevailing rule excluding lost business profits evidence in condemnation actions is firmly rooted in our jurisprudence.2 As a case that comprehensively discussed and applied this [11]*11enduring rule, Pemberton provides the framework upon which we base our decision today.3
B. Application of Pemberton
In the present case, the only issue for the jury was the amount of damages DOT owed MMFI. To establish its estimate of fair market value, MMFI offered the testimony of two witnesses: (1) Marvin Barnes, MMFI’s president, who detailed the business’s lost profits; and (2) Frank Ward, the company’s real estate appraiser, who used MMFI’s lost business profits to develop a valuation of the land. Both witnesses stated the highest and best use of the property in question was and is its present use as a convenience store and gasoline station both before and after the taking. Mr. Barnes opined that DOT’s condemnation impaired the remaining property and made it less valuable for these purposes. MMFI’s evidence showed that DOT relocated one of the driveways providing access to its property from Garrett Road [12]*12to Durham-Chapel Hill Road. The other two driveways were left in essentially the same location, although one was shorter and steeper after completion of the roadway project.4
Following the trial court’s limiting instruction, Mr. Barnes testified that MMFI lowered the price of gasoline, and consequently, the profit margin on each gallon sold dropped four cents in the five months following completion of construction. He believed the price reduction was necessary because of decreased customer access to the property resulting from DOT’s alterations of the driveways. Mr. Barnes multiplied MMFI’s alleged profit decrease by the number of gallons of gasoline sold each year at the station and arrived at a figure of $90,000 as the lost profits MMFI would suffer in the year following the taking. Mr. Barnes then assigned a before value of $1.3 million to the property and an after value of $800,000. He calculated the after value using what he considered to be a “conservative factor” of six times his estimate of yearly lost profits, which resulted in a $540,000 reduction in value.
Although the trial court properly admitted Mr. Barnes’s testimony that DOT’s condemnation made it more difficult for customers to enter MMFI’s service station, it should have excluded the quantified estimate of lost profits and any valuation based solely on this evidence. One factor in determining the value of condemned property is the highest and best use of the land. Kirkman, 257 N.C. at 432, 126 S.E.2d at 111. If the condemnation renders the remaining property “unfit or less valuable” for its highest and best use or any use to which it is adapted, the jury may consider the injury to the remaining land in its assessment of fair market value. Id. at 432, 126 S.E.2d at 110. Further, a landowner may express an opinion as to the fair market value of the property for the jury to weigh because “it is generally understood that the opinion of the owner is so far affected by bias that it amounts to little more than a definite statement of the maximum figure of his contention.” Helderman, 285 N.C. at 652, 207 S.E.2d at 725 (citation and internal quotations omitted). However, a landowner may not supplement this opinion with detailed evidence of lost business profits. Williams, 252 N.C. at 147-48, 113 S.E.2d at 268. Doing so suggests to the jury that the property owner is entitled to those losses. See Templeton, 254 N.C. at 340, 118 S.E.2d at 921 (finding error in trial court’s admission of evidence of “loss of rev[13]*13enue from fishing as a separate item of damage without taking into account what [e]ffect, if any, this had on the fair market value of the land after the taking”).
Any determination of fair market value must be based on the diminution in value — not just for the current owner of the property, but for any owner who would put the property to its highest and best use. In this case, MMFI attempted to recover for harm to its business rather than damage to the land itself.
Like Mr. Barnes’s testimony, Mr. Ward’s appraisal testimony was improperly admitted to the extent it was based on lost business profits. Mr. Ward testified he used the capitalization of income approach to assess the value of MMFI’s land. Although not the preferable method of valuation, applying the income approach was permissible in this case.5 This appraisal method relies on “actual or projected [income, such as rental income,] . . . earned from the property itself or comparable property.” 5 Nichols § 19.01, at 19-1; see id. § 19.02, at 19-11. However, with the income approach, the appraisal must differentiate between income directly from the property and profits of the business located on the land. 4 Nichols § 12B.09, at 12B-56 to -59.
Here, the commercial nature of the property lent itself to appraisals based on comparable rental values even though MMFI did not receive rent from the property. Mr. Ward used his estimate of the rental value of the site in his appraisal of the before value. However, Mr. Ward computed the after value of the real estate by multiplying MMFI’s estimate of its lost profits by factors of five and six, averaging the two results, and then subtracting the average from a before value of $1.2 million. Because he based his estimate of the after value solely on MMFI’s alleged lost profits, it was improper to allow Mr. Ward’s testimony concerning diminution in value.
C. Application of Kirkman
We disagree with the Court of Appeals analysis of Kirkman in this case. Kirkman simply applied our holding in Pemberton to its facts and did not, as the Court of Appeals held, create an exception to Pemberton allowing admission of specific lost business profits when partial takings result in restricted access to the land. In [14]*14Kirkman, the State Highway Commission took a portion of the landowners’ property containing a motel and restaurant, eliminating direct access to the land from the highway. 257 N.C. at 430, 126 S.E.2d at 109. The landowners’ expert witness testified he had considered the loss in value of the site as used for a motel and restaurant in assessing the fair market value after the taking. Id. at 431-32, 126 S.E.2d at 110. Although he took into account that restricting access to the property resulted in a loss of business, the expert did not “[attempt] to measure the loss of business in percentage or in money.” Id. at 432, 126 S.E.2d at 110. Rather than looking at the particular losses of the business located on the property, the expert broadly considered the way in which eliminating access to the site made it less valuable for anyone who wished to use it to operate a motel and restaurant. Id. The dissent wrongly asserts, “Kirkman instructs that using lost revenue evidence to inform market value is distinct from recovering lost revenue itself.” Kirkman clearly does not permit quantified evidence of lost business profits. There is no difference between using lost profits to determine the fair market value of the land and awarding them as a separate item of damages. By either improper calculation, the business receives compensation for its lost profits.
Thus, in Kirkman, we did not approve the use of quantified evidence of lost profits. To the contrary, this Court held unquantified lost business profits are a fact that can be generally considered in determining whether there has been a diminution in value in the land that remains after a partial taking. Id. Our decision in Kirkman must be read with our other cases, which clarify that although the jury may consider adverse effects resulting from condemnation that decrease the value of the remaining property, these effects “are not separate items of damage, recoverable as such, but are relevant only as circumstances tending to show a diminution in the over-all fair market value of the property.” Gallimore v. State Highway & Pub. Works Comm’n, 241 N.C. 350, 355, 85 S.E.2d 392, 396 (1955) (citing Raleigh, Charlotte & S. Ry. Co. v. Mecklenburg Mfg. Co., 169 N.C. 204, 169 N.C. 156, 85 S.E. 390 (1915)); see also Pemberton, 208 N.C. at 471, 181 S.E. at 261 (“[D]iminished value of [condemned] land . . . constitutes a proper item for inclusion in the award, but a business per se is not ‘property’ . . . requiring compensation for its taking under the power óf eminent domain.” (citing State v. Suncrest Lumber Co., 199 N.C. 199, 154 S.E. 72 (1930))). Allowing the jury to consider that the land may be less valuable due to the condemnation’s effect on the landowner’s business does not require quantified evidence of lost [15]*15profits also be admitted. This is an important distinction which unifies our analysis in both Kirkman and Pemberton. Neither opinion sanctions admission of quantified lost profits evidence.
Furthermore, the trial court’s limiting instruction, based on a misreading of Kirkman, did not cure the incorrect admission of lost profits testimony and appraisal testimony based on this evidence. Our Court has expressly held a limiting instruction is insufficient to overcome the error resulting from introduction of quantified evidence of lost business profits. Pemberton, 208 N.C. at 470, 472, 181 S.E. at 260, 261. like Pemberton, in this case, “[i]t is manifest from . . . the jury’s verdict” that MMFI has been awarded compensation for its alleged loss in business profits. Id. at 470, 181 S.E. at 260. Thus, the trial court’s use of a limiting instruction failed to remedy the admission of such evidence.
IV. DISPOSITION
Because the trial court erroneously allowed quantified lost business profits testimony and an appraisal based on that evidence, we reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to that court with instructions to further remand this case to the trial court for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED; NEW TRIAL.