Paul Court Neighborhood Ass’n v. Paster, 437 N.W.2d 52, 56 (Minn.1989); Tuma v. Commissioner of Economic Sec., 386 N.W.2d 702, 706 (Minn.1986) (citing Beck v. City of St. Paul, 304 Minn. 438, 445, 231 N.W.2d 919, 923 (1975)); Arcadia Dev. Corp. v. County of Hennepin, 528 N.W.2d 857, 860 (Minn.1995), reh’g denied (Minn. Apr. 12, 1995). Commonwealth does not contend that subdivision 2 is susceptible to more than one interpretation. Instead, Commonwealth contends subdivision 2 “is ambiguous because it provides absolutely no guidance to trial courts in determining when compensatory damages must be multiplied.” This court, in a slightly different context, has said that failure of expression does not give rise to ambiguity. See State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 269, 95 N.W.2d 6, 11-12 (1959) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Wetsch, 511 N.W.2d 490, 492
holding that for purposes of statutory construction expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other holding that school officials may not limit the first amendment rights of students and teachers to freedom of speech and expression holding that the us supreme courts interpretation of 18 usc  924c in an earlier case was not an expression of a new rule because the court merely interpreted a substantive criminal statute using rules of statutory construction holding where failure of expression rather than ambiguity of expression concerning the elements of the statutory standard is the vice of the enactment courts are not free to substitute amendment for construction and thereby supply the omissions of the legislature holding that matters of statutory construction are questions of law for the court to decide rather than issues of fact