I take it insurance companies access the risk in part depending on breed,size and so forth.Obviously a secure garden for a Dobermann would be different to one of a pug in their eyes.What am saying is why are they not made to stipulate this when you're taking out the policy( in actual measurements) so owners are aware and can make adjustments.

I think the onus is on the owner to read the policy to be fair, the information wasn't hidden in the small print but was in large print in the key facts. After reading it, if you still want to insure with them, then take steps to make the garden (in this instance) secure. It follows naturally for me, my dog, my responsibility.

Yes, my advice is take a deep breath, stay calm, (Try hard not to think about all the things you would like to do to an insurance assesor )

And then:-
a) Write to the company saying you wish to appeal the decision
b) Tell them you are publicising the case on fifteen dog and cat forums*
c) Write to the insurance ombudsman
d) Write to the local paper, ask them to send a reporter round to look at the wall and take a photo of your dog.
e) Write to your MP (That won't do any good but it will make him/her feel bad if he/she does nothing and that is worth something)

That's quite a lot of time and effort you have to put in but insurance companies fear bad publicity more than anything so getting the media involved is your best bet.

P.S.
You could also try writing to the advertising standards authority saying that their advertisements do not represent a true picture, as with the MP, this will probably fall on deaf ears but your local rag will be interested. If you can get a reporter round to your house don't forget to get a photo of you and your dog included in the story, this MUST show her on three legs.

* I am sure there are at least fifteen dog and cat forums if you do a Googel search.

Absolutely, but to say " reasonably secure" sounds like just that. Then unfortunately when you have to make a claim chances are they' ll get the measuring tape out!!Small print needs to be clearer and depending on breed, altered in my opinion.The onus is on the owner of course but small print can be very carefully written and used to insurance companies advantage

The thing is they put blanket policies in place because they can't home check every policy holder. Also how could they possibly know whether you have a dog that's likely to jump a wall or not. Breed alone wouldn't tell them that, Syd wouldn't have dreamt of jumping anything, he'd find a gap or go through the gate or whatever, Rio and Milan ( same breed ) would happily take a giant leap into the unknown. It is up to the owner to make the judgement call, I don't insure as I found when I did (back in the '80's) I never made any claims at all and once my terrier turned 8 his premium tripled so I cancelled the policies and now only ever insure for the first year of their lives.

A short time ago our dog, Ben, jumped out of our back garden over a fence with a steep drop the other side and attacked a dog passing by in the field.

We were covered under the terms of our insurance because despite the fact that our policy stated that boundary fences had to be secure etc. etc., we argued and they accepted without any trouble at all that for 15 years we had had dogs larger than Ben living in that garden and not once had any dog jumped out - dogs much larger and more athletic than Ben. In other words, they accepted that we could have had no notion or idea that Ben could have done what he did.

If I were the OP I would take this point up with the insurance company. If they can prove that they honestly could not have been expected to know that the dog could have scaled that wall, then they should be covered. Proof would have to be based on similar circumstances to mine etc. etc.

They don't need to home check every policy holder. They need to be more specific in what they class as reasonably secure. This one size fits all policy is ridiculous.If the owner can't provide the necessary requirements verses risk then company should make it clear that they wouldn't be covered in that respect.

I don't know how they could have made it any clearer, it's not hidden. The list of exclusions is quite clearly printed in the Key facts. From what I read they also wouldn't pay out if the collar snapped while lead walking, or if you managed to somehow lose your grip on the lead. The list of exclusions is quite large and clearly stated. You can't take out cheaper insurance and then complain the cover isn't as good as say Petplan. Buyer beware.

I understand your point

I really don't think it matters how secure your garden is or how big or athletic your dogs are - if, one day, one gets out, then it wasn't secure enough and the onus is on the owner to assess the risk and act accordingly before signing on the dotted line. It's not up to the insurance company to decide if such a dog could clear such a fence when the owner has signed to say the garden is secure.

It's a hard lesson to learn.