I dissent, however, to the draftsmanship of Syllabus Point 4 that states:
Where a person alleges injuries caused by a John Doe
defendant in a motor vehicle accident, recovery for damages
caused by the John Doe is limited to recovery under the insured
person's own uninsured motorist policy of insurance.
This rule is seems to be backwards from what the majority intended to say. Instead of saying a plaintiff can't make a John Doe claim against a third-party tortfeasor's uninsured motorist coverage _ which is the question before the Court _ Syllabus Point 4 inverts the answer and says a plaintiff can ONLY collect damages from his own uninsured motorist coverage. This language is therefore likely to be fertile soil in which crafty lawyers will sow litigation.
I believe that Syllabus Point 4 should have read:
Where a person alleges injuries caused in a collision with a
motor vehicle driven by a John Doe defendant who did not
have the express or implied permission of the named insured or
the insured's spouse to operate the motor vehicle, the person
may not recover damages under the uninsured motorist policy of
insurance on that motor vehicle.
With this language the majority opinion would have reached the same result, but without the likely mischief.
I therefore respectfully concur, in part, and dissent, in part.