(emphasis added). Therefore, in order to be classified under this subsection, a claim must be alleged under a policy for loss. Second, even if a claim is alleged under a policy for loss, it may still be exempt pursuant to the carve-out in subsection (b). The plain language of subsection (b) states that a “portion of any loss, indemnification for which is provided by other benefits or advantages recovered by the claimant, shall not be included in this class ...” Id. (emphasis added). Therefore, where there has been compensation for loss, a claim may not properly be classified under subsection (b). In evaluating this subsection of the Act, we note that the use of the word “shall” renders the carve-out mandatory. See Koken v. Reliance Ins. Co., 586 Pa. 269, 893 A.2d 70, 81 (2006) (<HOLDING>). If a claim is subject to the carve-out in
holding that the statute is mandatory holding that a states use of the word shall is mandatory language holding that where a statute includes the mandatory term shall an appellate court does not view its restriction as a suggestion  it is a mandate holding that the term shall is mandatory for purposes of statutory construction when the statute is unambiguous holding that if words of statute are unambiguous there is no room for judicial construction