"[A] court cannot construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications." Casais v. State , 204 So. 3d 969, 970 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting Jefferson v. State , 927 So. 2d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (Reyes, J., concurring)). Further, even if both subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) sound in negligence, both subsections also contain the language providing recovery "for the total sum of the losses."

McNeil v. State , 162 So.3d 274, 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Holly v. Auld , 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984) ). "Likewise, ‘[a] court cannot construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications.’ " Casais v. State , 204 So.3d 969, 970 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting Jefferson v. State , 927 So.2d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ). In another Engle -progeny case, the Florida Supreme Court likewise held that where a statute expressly states to which cases it will apply, prospectively only or also retrospectively, the clear language of the statute governs.