Sorry about the loss of the vehicle but at least you are okay.
Just playing devil's advocate a little but in a "he said, she said" accident, absent accident reconstruction being performed it is not as cut and dry as many would believe.
First of all, this was a 4 way Stop intersection which means you had to stop also. Every driver is charged with the general duty of "seeing what there is to be seen" on the roadway. Assuming equal sight distances down each of the 4 intersecting streets, the question becomes what did you have a duty to see in terms of her vehicle approaching.
At a 4 way stop, you normally yield the right of way to the vehicle on your right unless you are the first one at the intersection. Based upon your description it would appear she approached you from a street entering on your right. Assuming your description to be accurate, I would presume you reached this 4 way stop first.
Next, the investigating officer's opinion is inadmissible absent training in accident reconstruction combined with such a crash analysis being performed at the scene by that officer. Otherwise, his opinion is no more probative of the ultimate issue than anyone else's, including mine, here on Prime.
The exent of damage to a vehicle in a crash combined with the post-impact movement of those vehicles are a combination of the speed of both vehicles, angle of impact, height differentials and vehicle weights, among other factors. The amount of damage to your vehicle may just as likely result from your speed being excessive as it is a factor of her speed. It would take less energy from her vehicle to move your NSX over to the curb if you were speeding because even a lighter hit would merely redirect your forward energy to the side, depending upon the angle, and your path of travel would now be in that new direction until the car stopped on its own or impacted with a solid object.
Similarly, the ultimate resting place of both vehicles resulting in hers being "on top of" yours may merely be a consequence of the fact that an SUV is higher than an NSX. It would have been unlikely to have seen the reverse occur regardless of relative speeds. The distance she travelled post-impact may shed some light on her speed.
With that being said, I am not passing judgment on who is right or wrong but merely indicating that without eyewitness testimony (which, by the way, is viewed as the least reliable) or accident reconstruction, it is still your word against hers. At a minimum, cell phone records are admissible to establish that a driver was on the phone at the time of impact but do not confirm definitively that the driver ran a stop sign.
Photographs of the scene would be beneficial to determine whether there were any skid marks, yaw marks or gouge marks from either vehicle. Presumably you have insurance and will get a quick resolution from your carrier after which it will be their burden to establish her culpability during resolution of their subrogation claims.
Good luck with your search for a new one.
