to its policy holders. For example, the company’s purpose can be readily revealed to the policyholder by the addition of a single line or sentence to the declarations page or by defining the term “driver name.” Thus, this court concludes that the arguments of the defendant are unavailing and that although our holding in this case comports with that of the minority of jurisdictions, we are of the opinion that it represents the better public policy. “And we are also convinced that reasonable expectations of coverage raised by the declaration page cannot be contradicted by the policy’s boilerplate unless the declaration page itself clearly so warns the insured.” Id. at 347, 638 A.2d at 892; see also Elliott Leases Cars, Inc. v. Quigley, 118 R.I. 321, 327, 373 A.2d 810, 812 (1977) (<HOLDING>). In conclusion, therefore, we affirm the
holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant holding that an ordinary reader in the face of such detail would be warranted in concluding that any significant limitation on collision insurance would have been explicitly noted holding that the patentees argument that any shape would be equivalent to the conical limitation would write such a limitation out of the claim holding that it is most improbable that a significant change to bankruptcy procedure would have been made without even any mention in the legislative history holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible