Got nowhere with the insurance company. What bothered me the most was that they would not provide me with any details of how they calculated/justified "betterment" amount, beyond "opinion of the surveyor". The insurance company did pay in-full for all the additional yard fees that accumulated while we were in dispute over payment.
The insurance broker agreed that the insurance provider was allowed to claim betterment.
I was able to negotiate some discount with the repair company (different company from the yard), mostly because he needed to get the boat out of the way so he could start on the next job rather than have me continue to fight with my insurance.
My insurance did contain the applicable betterment clause. I suggest that all of you read your insurance policy and/or ask your agent about "betterment" and what that could mean for you.
If anyone finds finds an insurance provider that does not have a "betterment" provision, please let me know. This experience made me consider replacing the boat with an RV or some other expensive hobby.
So the broker acknowledge knowing about the clause when he sold it to you and not informing you of it. I wish I could read your clause. I've never had a policy or read a policy with such a clause. It is their way around depreciated parts. The argument was that you should get old for old, shouldn't get new parts to replace old. Now, people have learned that and started avoiding depreciation of parts clauses. I want new OEM. My old parts are one thing, but someone else's that may not have had the same care are different. Also, just finding used is a pain. So, these insurers have started saying we replace old with new, we've bettered your situation.
Now I would argue that. You replace my old rail with a new one, my boat works the same, the rail works the same. You say my value increased? I'll argue my value decreased with the history of damage. The new parts don't come close to negating that. Betterment policies allow wild uncorroborated speculative calculations.
Your warning is great. I hope others are checking their policies and will speak up and let us know if they find betterment clauses. I understand insurers don't feel they should better your situation but leaving them with an open door is unwise. These are the same insurers who don't want to pay for loss of value due to accident, yet we all know value is lost due to accidents. In fact, now the major auto pricing services can quantify that.
I've looked at a lot of policies and you have pointed out something I wasn't familiar with but which is apparently not that unusual. I'm wondering if it's more in Texas than elsewhere, although now illegal on cars in Texas.
My Director of Risk Management says she's seen it in a variety of areas from automobile to construction. Interesting in construction where they have to replace extra to match and Florida is a matching state.
I also found out it's common on Progressive policies. Any with Progressive here who can look for us?
I understand the theory, but think it's lousy theory, very disputable, and then in practice becomes arbitrary and unsupportable. I don't know how I've avoided seeing it before. I can only guess those smart enough not to offer me such a policy.
I really hope others will check and add to this thread on what they find on their policies.
Too late to help you, but here's a link for fighting betterment charges.
https://insuranceclaimhero.com/insurance-estimate-betterment/