noneconomic damages in the aggregate is plain and explicit. The plaintiffs assert that the statute’s requirement that the cap be applied in the aggregate is unconstitutional under various provisions of the Florida Constitution and United States Constitution on the ground that the statute does not permit full recovery by each claimant. Because the Florida Supreme Court cannot accept a question certified for review by a United States district court, see footnote 1 above, this court proceeds by looking to the decisions of the Florida courts for guidance. The Florida Supreme Court “is the ultimate árbiter of the meaning and extent of the safeguards provided under Florida’s Constitution.” State v. Kelly, 999 So.2d 1029, 1042 (Fla.2008); see also Gore, 517 U.S. at 577, 116 S.Ct. 1589 (<HOLDING>). Where the state supreme court has not yet
recognizing courts obligation to construe meaning of relatives recognizing that courts should not construe statutes in a way that leads to absurd results recognizing only state courts may authoritatively construe state statutes holding that courts should liberally construe the requirements of rule 3 holding that courts are to construe statutes so as to harmonize with other relevant laws if possible