BERNAL v. DORTICOS (2026)

Affirmed. See State v. Arshadnia, 388 So. 3d 194, 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“In cases involving statutory construction, the cardinal rule is that ‘the authoritative statement is the ․ text, not the legislative history or any other extrinsic material.’ ” (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568 (2005))); State v. Jett, 626 So. 2d 691, 693 (Fla. 1993) (“It is a settled rule of statutory construction that unambiguous language is not subject to judicial construction, however wise it may seem to alter the plain language.”); A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, 137 So. 157, 159 (Fla. 1931) (“When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.”); § 324.021(9)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2017) (“The limits on liability in subparagraphs (b)2. and 3. do not apply to an owner of motor vehicles that are used for commercial activity in the owner's ordinary course of business ․”); § 324.021(9)(c)2., Fla. Stat. (2017) (lifting the limits of liability as to commercial motor vehicles only “if, at the time of the incident, the commercial motor vehicle is being used in the transportation of the materials found to be hazardous ․”); see also Lynn v. Feldmeth, 849 So. 2d 481, 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding “the statutory damage cap is not an affirmative defense because it does not, in whole or in part, bar or void the cause of action”).

PER CURIAM.