CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FONTUS (2024)

Affirmed. See Millar Elevator Serv. Co. v. McGowan, 819 So. 2d 145, 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“To provide a trial court with the opportunity to correct errors, a timely objection is necessary.”); Companioni v. City of Tampa, 51 So. 3d 452, 456 (Fla. 2010) (requiring objecting party to move for a mistrial or request a curative instruction for any objections that are sustained by the trial court); Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010, 1027-30 (Fla. 2000) (if a claim is not properly preserved for review, the issue can only be reviewed for fundamental error, which requires the movant to demonstrate: 1) the challenged argument or comment was improper; 2) the argument or comment was harmful; 3) the argument or comment is incurable; and 4) the argument or comment must be such that it so damaged the fairness of the trial that the public's interest in our system of justice requires a new trial); Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[I]f the complaining party fails to establish that the argument being challenged is improper, harmful, and incurable, then the analysis does not proceed to the last prong of this four-part test.”); Kloster Cruise Ltd. v. Grubbs, 762 So. 2d 552, 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“[T]he matter is not properly preserved for review because the bare hearsay objection made below did not elucidate the double hearsay[ ] argument [that the appellant] now offers as a basis to exclude the evidence.”).

PER CURIAM.