the plain terms of the Professional Services Charge Exception, however, do not require a final adjudication in order for it to apply. In sum, the Magistrate Judge’s and PNC’s constructions of the Professional Services Charge Exception are not reasonable. Rather, each construction “distort[s] the meaning of the language or resort[s] to a strained contrivance in order to find an ambiguity,” Madison Const. Co., 735 A.2d at 106. Accordingly, we find that the Professional Services Charge Exception is not ambiguous and the District Court did not err by failing to adopt a construction favoring coverage. C. PNC next argues that the District Court erred by rewriting the Professional Services Charge Exception. See Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Zerance, 505 Pa. 345, 479 A.2d 949, 953 (1984) (<HOLDING>). PNC contends that the Professional Services
holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law holding that the court may not under the guise of statutory construction rewrite a statutory provision holding that a court may not rewrite the statute to insert an additional requirement not placed there by the legislature holding that a court may not rewrite the insurance contract under the guise of judicial interpretation