(a) Joinder of claims. A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims either legal or equitable, or both, as the party has against an opposing party.
Rule 18.Joinder of claims and remedies.
Last amended October 1, 1995 · Last verified July 6, 2026
In one sentenceRule 18 lets a party pile every claim it has against an opposing party into one lawsuit, related or not, legal or equitable, so long as the two parties are already properly before the court.
Full Text of Rule 18
(b) Joinder of remedies: Fraudulent conveyances. Whenever a claim is one heretofore cognizable only after another claim has been prosecuted to a conclusion, the two claims may be joined in a single action; but the court shall grant relief in that action only in accordance with the relative substantive rights of the parties. In particular, a plaintiff may state a claim for money and a claim to have set aside a conveyance fraudulent as to that plaintiff, without first having obtained a judgment establishing the claim for money.
(c) Liability insurance coverage. In no event shall this or any other rule be construed to permit a jury trial of a liability insurance coverage question jointly with the trial of a related damage claim against an insured.
(dc) District court rule. Rule 18 applies in the district courts, except that (1) in Rule 18(a) the provision for joinder of legal or equitable claims is limited to the joinder of claims which come within the jurisdiction of the district courts, (2) Rule 18(b) applies in the district courts only within the limits of the jurisdiction of the district courts, and (3) Rule 18(c) is deleted.
Amendment History
[Amended 5-16-83, eff. 7-1-83; Amended eff. 10-1-95.]
Committee Comments
Committee Comments
It has not hitherto been possible to join tort and contract claims, save where they arose out of the same transaction or related to the same subject matter. Code of Ala., Tit. 7, § 220; cf. Equity Rule 15. This limitation, which is irrelevant to the question of what actions may be conveniently tried together, is abolished. Rule 18(a) removes all such limitations. Where there is but one plaintiff and one defendant, there can be no misjoinder of claims. Atlantic Lumber Corp. v. Southern Pac. Co., 2 F.R.D. 313 (D.Or.1941). Nor can there be misjoinder of claims where multiple parties are involved if the parties are properly joined under Rules 13, 14, 19, 20 and 22. It is for the court, pursuant to Rule 42(b), to order separate trials as to particular claims or issues as will best serve convenience and avoid prejudice.
As to the effect of venue requirements on joinder of claims, see Rule 82(c).
Rule 18(b) is inserted to make it clear that in a single action a party should be accorded all the relief to which he is entitled regardless of whether it is legal or equitable or both. In respect to fraudulent conveyances the rule conforms to the provisions of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, §§ 9 and 10. See McLaughlin, Application of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, 46 Harv.L.Rev. 404, 444 (1933).
Rule 18(a) is comparable to Federal Rule 18(a) which was rewritten in 1966, not to make any basic change but to clarify language which had been the basis of restrictive construction. According to U.S.S.Ct. Advisory Committee, “the rules proceed on the theory that no inconvenience can result from the joinder of any two or more matters in the pleadings, but only from trying two or more matters together.” Federal Rule 18(a) as it formerly stood contains reference to Rules 19, 20 and 22. This language in the Rule dealing only with joinder of claims and remedies was the basis for a line of cases making the rule, in its operation, subordinate and subject to the requirements of Rule 20 dealing with joinder of parties. The progenitor of this line of cases was Federal Housing Adm’r v. Christianson, 26 F.Supp. 419 (D.Conn.1939), a case which has been suggested to be an incorrect construction of the Rule as it was originally written. See Wright, Federal Courts, p. 344 (2d Ed.1970). This construction was given credibility by the language of Rule 20(a) wherein the ambiguous word “them” was used. These cases construed the word “them” in Rule 20 to mean “claims” and, hence, found that Rule 20 spoke to claims as well as parties. The result was the incorporation by reference of Rule 20 requirements for parties upon Rule 18 requirements for claims. Since Rule 20 requirements were narrower, Rule 18 became more restricted than it would have been had Rule 20 never been carried in by reference. Rule 18 as now written seeks to eliminate this situation. The specific reference to other rules is eliminated. The inclusion of specific reference to compliance with other rules in the first place is dubious because it would appear to go without saying that each rule depends upon compliance with other rules. Otherwise, for example, each reference to a complaint should be coupled with the phrase “subject to compliance with requirements of Rule 12.” As a corollary measure, the word “them” in Rule 20 now reads, “these persons.” As a result, the joinder of claims under Rule 18 comes into play after examination for compliance with Rule 20 and satisfaction of Rule 18 requirements is measured without further reference to Rule 20. Of course, the Rule as now written commands the existence of the severance provisions of Rule 42(b), Separate Trials.
Question has arisen as to the propriety of joinder of insured and insurer. Superficially, Rule 18 might suggest the possibility of joinder of a contingent claim against the insurer. However, these rules do not afford a basis for alteration of substantive rights of parties created by contract (Hughes v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 223 Ala. 59, 134 So. 461 (1931) (no action clause in insurance policy enforceable)), and Tit. 28, § 12, Code of Ala., providing for an action against insurer upon recovery of a final judgment. For discussion of this situation in federal practice, see Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil, § 1594, and 3A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 18.08(2), p. 2011 (1970). The provisions of Rule 18(c) have been inserted to prevent a joint trial on the issue of insurance coverage and a related damage claim in those actions wherein the provisions of Rule 18 have permitted joinder of those claims for pleading purposes or where such an issue is presented by third party action, counterclaim, cross-claim or in a declaratory judgment proceeding.
Committee Comments to October 1, 1995, Amendment to Rule 18
The amendment is technical. No substantive change is intended.
District Court Committee Comments
The jurisdictional limitations contained in § 4-102 of the Judicial Article Implementation Act (Act 1205, 1975 Ala.Acts; § 12-12-30, Code 1975) must be read in conjunction with the provision for a joinder of claims, legal or equitable, referred to Rule 18(a). Likewise, the jurisdiction limitation of the district court must be applied to any construction of Rule 18(b). Finally, Rule 18(c) deals with procedure in a jury trial and, in view of the absence of provision for trial by jury in the district court, has no applicability to the district courts.
[Amended effective July 1, 1983.]
Plain-English Summary
Once one plaintiff and one defendant are in a lawsuit together, Rule 18 clears away almost every restriction on what claims they can bring against each other in that same case. It doesn’t matter whether the claims share any facts, whether one sounds in contract and another in tort, or whether one seeks money and another seeks an injunction or some other equitable remedy. A party can throw in every grievance it has against the other side, either as separate claims or as alternatives pursued side by side until the evidence sorts out which one holds up. This is a sharp break from older practice, when a claim had to fit a particular legal category before a court would hear it alongside another.
Rule 18 also handles two narrower situations by name. One lets a plaintiff combine a claim for money owed with a claim to undo a transfer of property made to dodge that debt, without first winning a judgment on the money claim and then coming back for round two. The other addresses liability insurance: even though Rule 18 opens the door to combining almost anything, it closes that door partway by forbidding a jury from deciding, in the same trial as the injury or damages claim, whether an insurance policy covers the loss. That coverage question has to be kept separate from the jury that decides the underlying liability.
None of this forces a party to bring every claim it has, and it doesn’t force the court to try everything together once claims are joined. Rule 18 governs what can be pleaded in one case; it leaves the trial court free to later separate claims for trial or pretrial handling, or to split them into independent cases, if trying them together would be unwieldy or unfair. In practice, Rule 18 mostly matters at the pleading stage — it tells a party it need not guess which single claim to bring and risk losing the rest to time or later preclusion rules, and it works hand in hand with the broader shift, begun in Rule 2, toward one unified form of civil action.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue the same defendant for a car wreck and an unrelated business dispute in one lawsuit?
Yes. Rule 18 lets one plaintiff join any number of claims against one defendant in a single case, whether or not the claims are related, so an unrelated business dispute and a car wreck claim can both go in the same complaint against the same defendant.
Am I required to bring all my claims against the defendant at once?
No. Rule 18 gives you the option to join claims; it does not force you to. But leaving a related claim out can create problems later under rules that bar re-litigating claims that should have been brought the first time, so it is worth thinking through before you file.
If I join several claims, will the judge try them all together?
Not necessarily. Joining claims under Rule 18 only determines what can be pleaded together. The trial court can still order separate trials or separate pretrial handling, or even split the claims into independent lawsuits, if trying everything together would be confusing or unfair.
Can a jury decide whether my insurance covers the accident at the same trial as my injury claim?
No. Rule 18 specifically forbids trying an insurance coverage question to the same jury that is deciding a related damages claim against the insured. The coverage issue has to be handled separately.
Can I sue to cancel a fraudulent transfer of property before I win my underlying money claim?
Yes. Rule 18 lets you combine a claim for money owed with a claim to set aside a conveyance made to defraud you, in the same lawsuit, without first getting a judgment on the money claim.
Source & verification. The rule text, amendment history, and Committee Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (Ala. R. Civ. P. 18). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Alabama (Ala. Const. amend. 328, § 6.11). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 6, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: joinder of claimscombining claims in one lawsuitjoining legal and equitable claimsfraudulent conveyance claim joinderinsurance coverage jury trial ruleAla. R. Civ. P. 18