evade the command of the statute by simply selling a salvage vehicle before the certificate of title arrives, the entire purpose of the legislation can be readily defeated. The Indiana Supreme Court has held that ambiguous statutes should be construed “so as to arrive at the apparent intention of the legislature.” Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 275 Ind. 520, 418 N.E.2d 207, 210 (1981). Notably, the district court indicated that its interpretation was in some tension with the underlying purpose of the statute. Storie, 2009 WL 348751, at *2 n. 4. Given these difficulties, we find Ind. Code § 9-22-3-11(e) to be ambiguous. We conclude that the question raised by the present case may best be answered by the Indiana Supreme Court. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Laird, 622 N.E.2d 912, 915 (Ind.1993) (<HOLDING>); see also Arizonans for Official English v.
recognizing that courts may look beyond the statutory text to determine legislative intent only when the statute is ambiguous holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation holding that when relevant contract language is ambiguous interpretation is turned over to the factfinder holding that indiana courts will only engage in statutory interpretation if the language of the statute is ambiguous recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect