in subsections (1) through (3). § 726.110 (emphasis added). The unambiguous text thus performs the exact function that distinguishes a statute of repose from a .statute of limitations; ,it extinguishes the cause of action rather than merely barring the remedy. For this reason, a number of courts in other jurisdictions interpreting various state codifications of the Uniform Act .have held that the statute is one of repose. See, e.g., MSKP Oak Grove, LLC v. Venuto, No. 10-6465(JBS/JS), 2014 WL 4385979, at *5 (D.N.J. Sept. 5, 2014) (“The use of the term ‘extinguished’ manifests legislative ■intent to eliminate a cause of action after a predetermined time period, a distinctive characteristic of a statute of repose.”); In re Jamuna Real Estate LLC, 365 B.R. 540, 567 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2007) (<HOLDING>); Forman v. Jeffrey Matthews Fin. Grp., LLC,
holding that effect must be given if possible to every clause and word of a statute holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose holding principle of statutory construction is to give effect to every clause and word of a statute holding that provision is a statute of repose and noting that the word extinguished is emphasized because of its substantive effect holding that provision is a statute of repose because by its own terms the provision does not just procedurally bar an untimely claim it substantively extinguishes the cause of action