What's covered by the policy is not determined by the value of the home. It's determined by the terms and conditions of the policy.
I hate articles that say things like:
"According to some interpretations and courts, if 'you' no longer reside in the dwelling, coverage on that structure immediately terminates."
An absolutely useless piece of information without case citations.
Try reading the white paper. It has pages of case law citations, as do the webinars. The article I think you're referring to is simply a recap of prior communications on the issue over a period of several years.
The courts who have heard the residency issue run about 50/50 for/against coverage, with the courts ruling against coverage in a slight majority. I still don't agree with those decisions that hinge only on the "where you reside" language...I suspect the homeowner had less than top notch legal counsel and expert witness testimony.