Wife wins insurance payout after husband accidentally shot their dog trying to scare off three badgers
The couple, known only as Mr and Mrs T, had feared their small dog would be 'savaged to death' after it was attacked by a group of 'angry and vicious' badgers under a cabin in their garden.
By DAN WOODLAND, NEWS REPORTER
Published: 10:33 GMT, 2 January 2026 | Updated: 11:02 GMT, 2 January 2026
A woman has won a claim against a pet insurer after her husband accidentally shot their dog while trying to scare off three badgers.
The couple, known only as Mr and Mrs T, had feared their small dog would be 'savaged to death' after it was attacked by a group of 'angry and vicious' badgers under a cabin in their garden.
In a bid to scare the animals away, Mr T fired a shot under the cabin and inadvertently hit the dog in the leg.
The pooch was treated for the injury, but when Mrs T tried to claim the costs with their insurer Wakam, the company declined.
Wakam argued she had breached their policy terms by putting the dog at risk and Mr T's actions had been 'neither proportionate or safe'.
The company also stated that shooting badgers is illegal in the UK.
Mrs T referred her case to the financial ombudsman, which has since ruled in her favour and ordered Wakam to pay £150 in compensation.
Ombudsman Lindsey Woloski ruled Mr T's actions were 'rational' and 'proportionate' in trying to save their dog and decided there was no breach to the company's policy.
A woman has won a claim against a pet insurer after her husband accidentally shot their dog while trying to scare off three badgers (File photo)
'I find that rather than putting the dog in danger, the use of the gun effectively scared the badgers away. I understand that the badgers were protecting a sett and the fear was they would savage the small dog to death,' Ms Woloski wrote.
'I think that fear was rational, and the action taken was proportionate. It is most unfortunate that the dog's leg was caught.'
She added that Mr T had only been trying to scare the animals off and believed using a gun was the only way he could save and protect the dog from the three 'vicious and angry' badgers.
Mr T was also not breaking the law under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 as he was only attempting to scare the badgers rather than kill them, she ruled.
'If I am wrong about that and it could be argued that Mr T was attempting to kill the badgers, the Act provides that a person is not guilty of an offence if he shows his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to property (here the pet dog),' Ms Woloski added.
'So although it doesn’t seem to me that an offence was committed, if it was, I’m satisfied that the statutory defence would apply.'
Ms Woloski ordered Wakam to settle the claim, subject to any remaining policy terms, and pay Mrs T £150 in compensation for causing 'further distress and inconvenience' by 'unfaily' declining the payment.