In Rivera v. Witt, 257 Va. 280, 512 S.E.2d 558 (Va. 1999), the Virginia court distinguished its earlier decision of Truman v. Spivey, 225 Va. 274, 302 S.E.2d 517 (Va. 1983). In the Truman case, the court determined that its John Doe statute treated both a John Doe defendant and a later identified uninsured defendant as one entity. In Rivera, the only distinction was that the later identified tortfeasor who was originally sued as John Doe was an insured motorist. The Rivera court concluded, "there is nothing in the uninsured motorist statute which suggests that, under the facts of this case, Doe and Witt should be treated as the same entity; therefore, the statute of limitations applies to each of them individually." 512 S.E.2d at 560.