What is the difference between the words “variations” and “additional conditions” on a policy?

The words “variations in conditions” are altogether omitted. The other words are there, but in type which is far from conspicuous, and in ink which differs in shade from that in which the statutory conditions are printed chiefly by being more indistinct and less easy to be read. And although there are the words “additional conditions” printed as a heading to certain conditions which follow, not the statutory conditions, but the variations, those words neither are the same as what the statute requires, nor, in my judgment, to the same effect; nor are they added to the statutory conditions in the way that expression is obviously used, meaning immediately following them, but occur in a different place, and in a different connection. I can discover neither compliance nor intention to comply with the statute in what I see on the policy. On the contrary, I find conditions open to all the objections so frequently and forcibly urged against those which insurance companies were accustomed to print on their policies in a form and shape calculated to deter insurers from attempting the task of reading them—a task only to be accomplished by the aid of good light and perfect eyesight—and which conditions, if deciphered, were not likely to be fully comprehended without great attention and patience. I confess to deriving from the appearance of these conditions the same impression which I received from the so-called payment on account of the premium, viz., that the object and design were to evade the statute, and not to honestly comply with it. Sands v. Standard Ins. Co., 26 Gr. 113, before Proudfoot, V.C., was a suit against the company which is mentioned in the evidence before us as being managed by the same secretary, and represented by the same adjuster or inspector as the company which is defendant in this case. The difference between the two companies seems to be that the Standard does not profess to be a mutual company. But, amongst other points of similarity, they appear to pursue the [???] course in their mode of printing their conditions. I refer to the remarks of the learned Vice-Chancellor in that case and to those of Mr. Justice Armour in this case, for the purpose of saying that I entirely concur with them[2].