Again, if the jury was shown a police report, it would be highly influential.Even then, the report would be useless as direct evidence. I don't know what "quashing" it might do since it is not evidence. The information contained within can still be testified to by the officer who prepared it and the parties and witnesses to the collision itself. (Plus, I am not sure "quashing" it is even possible ... it's a report, not evidence, and not a subpoena or other process.)
What I meant by "quashing" is that my attorney had to file a motion to suppress the police report. If he hadn't done that I suspect the defense would have admitted it into evidence and shown it to the jury. Also, I filed a supplemental to the police report days after the accident and before I retained an attorney due to the false and missing information in it. I also requested a meeting with the officer but he would not respond to my multiple emails to him. In that supplemental I claimed the other accident victim gave false information to the police officer and he recorded it on the police report. During trial the defense attorney wanted to question the other accident victim on the stand to refute my supplemental and begin to introduce contents of the report as testimony or evidence in front of the jury. But, the other victim refused a subpoena so I will never know exactly if the defense attorney would have been able to read the report in front of the jury. Either way, that report would have been highly influential to a jury...regardless of what type of evidence it is.
Who cares if they are legally bound. The insurance company and an attorney will use the report to whatever advantage they can.Only to those who accept the conclusions therein. Something the insurance companies are not legally bound to do.