Short answer. Yes. Section 2 of Rule 8 allows a party to set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, whether within one cause of action/defense or in separate ones — and the pleading isn't rendered insufficient just because one alternative statement is.
What the law says
A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of action or defense or in separate causes of action or defenses. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements.
Rule 8, Section 2 — Alternative causes of action or defenses. Read the full provision →
Alternative pleading is expressly permitted
Section 2 directly authorizes what might otherwise seem inconsistent: a party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of action or defense or in separate causes of action or defenses. This allows a plaintiff or defendant to hedge between different legal theories when the facts or applicable law are genuinely uncertain at the pleading stage, rather than being forced to commit to a single theory that might later prove wrong once the evidence is fully developed at trial.
One valid theory is enough
The section adds a crucial protection: when two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. In other words, a party does not lose the benefit of a sound theory just because they also included a weaker alternative alongside it — each alternative stands or falls on its own for sufficiency purposes, and a weak backup theory cannot drag down a strong primary one.
Why this flexibility exists
This provision recognizes the practical reality that, especially early in a case, a party may not yet know with certainty which legal theory the eventual facts will support — was there a breach of contract, or was there no contract at all and instead unjust enrichment, for example. Alternative pleading lets a party preserve multiple viable paths without being penalized for uncertainty that discovery or trial will later resolve, rather than gambling everything on a single theory chosen before the facts are fully known. Courts generally tolerate this kind of hedging so long as the alternative theories are not frivolous or asserted purely to harass the opposing party.