California – Rear-ended By Chp Officer, Being Pressured To Accept Fault. Need Advice Asap

TL;DR: My wife was rear-ended by a CHP officer while yielding to his sirens at an intersection. Now the City’s claims company is threatening us directly, Progressive says we should just “accept liability” so they’ll pay, but I’m worried this unfairly blames us and has long-term consequences. Worth fighting, or should we just give in?

Longer version:

Hi everyone, looking urgently for advice on a tricky situation involving CHP, the City of a small town near SF (CA), my insurance, and a third-party claims administrator (Carl Warren). Carl Warren is escalating this case and threatening with collections and DMV action, even though I am covered by insurance and they have been in contact.

Accident details:

• Date/location: Summer 2024, at a busy 4-lane intersection.
• My wife was driving, heard sirens, moved right to yield (as required by CA law).
• CHP officer, also in right lane, rear-ended her.
• Police report says she “admitted to lane change,” favors officer’s story, no neutral witnesses included.
• My wife and kids say she moved gradually, not suddenly.
• City of small town (I guess CHP worked for them) now hired Carl Warren to retrieve $25k a year post the fact. Carl Warrens note list the incident at another date in 2025 (wrong)

Police Report Issues:

• The report says my wife admitted to hearing sirens and yielding right, and it blames her under Vehicle Code 21806 (duty to yield to emergency vehicles).
• BUT: emergency vehicles also have a duty to drive safely, especially near intersections. He rear-ended her.
• Officer tried to shift accident location away from intersection. I personally witnessed this when I arrived at the scene.
• Accident happened within 25ft of intersection, but report doesn't even mention intersection.
• The report only reflects the officer’s account. No witnesses were interviewed.
• Conflicting info on dashcam/bodycam footage: report says it exists, City says none available.

Insurance Situation:

• We’re insured through Progressive. Claim filed promptly.
• Demand from the City is about $25,000.
• Progressive acknowledges coverage and says they’d pay if we accept liability, no out-of-pocket, but rates could rise.
• Progressive admits this should have been handled insurer-to-insurer (subrogation), but instead Carl Warren & Co. (the City’s third-party administrator) has been sending us direct collection threats, including DMV action.

My Concerns:

• Progressive is pushing me to “just accept liability” for faster resolution.
• But I worry this creates a permanent record of fault (insurance premiums, DMV, maybe more) when my wife wasn’t actually at fault, or at least not completely.
• Procedural sloppiness: Carl Warren letters even list the wrong accident date. Not sure if that matters legally.
• Possible due process/consumer protection issues with Carl Warren’s direct threats while we’re fully insured. They are trying to force our hand without the correct legal procedures.

Questions:

• In arbitration, does the police report basically doom us, or do we have defenses (rear-end accident, officer’s duty of care, missing video, bad reporting)?
• How serious are the long-term consequences of accepting liability through insurance?
• Is it worth hiring a lawyer to fight this (~$25k claim), or would legal costs outweigh benefits?
• Can Carl Warren’s tactics be challenged as improper?
• Can this affect immigration? We are on green card and might want to go for citizenship at a certain time.

I have copies of all letters and email exchanges with Progressive. Meeting with a civil lawyer soon, but I’d love to hear some alternative perspectives to be prepared well as this case is causing a lot of stress.

Thanks in advance!