The lender will get a copy of this policy and will see the new policy holder being different than the borrower they have on the loan and you can get notices of breach of contract at that point? 

But I have read that umbrella insurance covers not just the policyholder, but also other members of his/her family or household. 

That means the company is owned by the policyholders.

You have rights as a consumer and as a policy holder and a pubic adjuster will make sure that you are able to exercise those rights to their fullest extent. 

With that said State Farm is the only major insurer that has no breed restriction, but they even recently reported that the choice to not restrict breeds has raised their liability cost by 20% for all policyholders, and if they don't take action on breed restrictions, that may move to 50% by 2022.

If it is discovered that the ex-owner, the first-named insured in this case, no longer owns the property, expect the insurer to deny based upon the fact the policyholder no longer owns the property.

The purpose of insurance is to distribute costs across all their policy holders, but they also have to charge for profit and overhead.

Jason, here is what I have been advised: If your entity is on title, but you are named personally as the insurance policy holder, the insurance company could have a "reason" to not pay out claiming the owner was not the insured party.

But to say an insurer is not reputable because they are protecting every other policy holder that they insure (as they are a mutual so every policy holder is an owner) by underwriting a property is not correct.  

I would think that if the owners who own the insurance policy came to an agreement with their insurance on the amount of damages before the sale to someone else, then the insurance company could likely agree to issue the check directly to the contractor/buyer, or the policyholders could just agree to turn those funds over to the new buyer as part of the sale.