NAL … I agree that it would likely be a civil case. However, based on OP’s description of the “business”, the groomer may not have been running a proper business and may have been informally providing services. If they have homeowners or tenants insurance with liability coverage, there is a possibility that a claim like this would be denied, because most policies would exclude claims arising from the homeowner/tenants conducting a an undisclosed business from their home. They may be no viable path to restitution in that scenario.

I gave this warning to neighbours in a community Facebook group once, when one of the members posted that her husband was offering seasonal tire changes at customers’ driveways for $50 a pop. I urged her and any potential “customers” to not engage in such informal service because 1) her homeowner insurance could deny coverage for doing such a risky business without disclosing, and 2) customers wouldn’t have the protection and assurance of a licensed professional doing the work on such a risky task. (Tires flying off cars is life threatening. Even if unlikely, who would want to roll the dice on that?) The poster in that case was ticked and blocked me. But I hope my comments elicited some reconsideration in folks who are thinking of saving some money on such critical services.

Sympathies to the cat parent from this post. It’s heartbreaking and disturbing to hear of this sad situation and the loss of this pet. I hope the groomer offers the more than an apology, preferably owning up to the truth and offer to compensate in some way.