Umbrella insurance premium tripled. Is dropping it and maxing primary limits a safe alternative?

Hi everyone, looking for some asset protection and risk management advice regarding a massive insurance rate spike.

I have a bundled home and auto policy with a carrier. We have 3 vehicles (two older paid-off models, one newer financed vehicle) and 3 drivers, including a newly licensed teenage daughter.

Our $1M umbrella policy renewal just came back, and the premium skyrocketed from roughly $500/year to over $1,500/year. When I spoke to my agent about this massive 300% jump, he explained that it isn't just my household profile; the carrier itself is experiencing a severe general rate spike because their overall underwriting costs have tripled and the umbrella line hasn't been profitable for them. While having a teen driver certainly factors into my specific tier, the baseline cost of the policy has apparently shifted.

Because I cannot justify a $1,500 annual premium but still want to protect my assets, I am trying to figure out the best alternative. I love the peace of mind that comes with an umbrella policy, specifically the idea that the insurance company's lawyers act as my "retained legal team" if a catastrophic lawsuit happens.

My agent offered a workaround: Drop the umbrella entirely, bump our homeowners personal liability from $300k to $1M (costs about $40/year), and bump our auto liability limits from $250k/$500k to a flat $1M single limit (adds about $370/year).

This "maxed primary limits" strategy gets us matching $1M liability shields across our main exposures for an extra ~$410 a year, saving us over $1,100 compared to the new umbrella rate.

My questions for the sub:

1. Is there a catch to dropping a true umbrella and just maxing out primary Auto/Home limits to $1M? Do I lose that critical "insurance lawyers defending my assets" feature if a claim hits the $1M ceiling on a primary policy versus an umbrella?
2. Financially and legally speaking, is it possible to ask a carrier to exclude a teenage child from an umbrella policy while keeping the parents covered? She obviously has zero personal assets or money for anyone to come after. I don't want to leave her unprotected, but if she has no assets, would a catastrophic accident (God forbid) on her part still expose our parental assets if she isn't on the umbrella? Or would the plaintiff just bypass her completely and target us anyway, rendering the exclusion useless?

For context, we are located in Midwest.

Appreciate any insights!