precludes a successful plaintiff from recovering the PIP deductible from a tortfeasor. This Court has consistently held that unambiguous statutory language must be accorded its plain meaning. See Carson v. Miller, 370 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 1979). Section 627.739(1) provides that “[a]ny person electing a deductible or modified coverage ... shall have no right to claim or to recover any amount so deducted from ... any person or organization legally responsible for any such person’s acts or omissions who is made exempt from tort liability by ss. 627.730-627.7405.” (Emphasis added). It follows that where a plaintiff has elected a PIP deductible, it must be subtracted from the jury verdict against a tortfeasor. See generally Verdecia v. American Risk Assurance Co., 543 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA) (<HOLDING>), review denied, 551 So.2d 464 (Fla.1989). The
holding that section 6277391 the statutory provision which eliminates the tort remedy against the tortfeasor for the pip deductible is constitutional holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them holdingthat the exclusive remedy provision barred a tort lawsuit against the plaintiffs employer because the plaintiff had previously entered a boardapproved settlement with the employer for the same injury holding that where statutory or regulatory provisions which evidence the public policy themselves provide a remedy for the wrongful discharge provision of a further remedy under the public policy exception is unnecessary holding that section 1220 provides an exclusive remedy for tort like actions against an insurer