With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". inconsistent allegations indicated falsehood on its face and was a sign of a chicanerous litigant seeking to subvert the judicial process. All too frequently, however, valid claims were sacrificed on the altar of technical consistency. In order to avoid the constrictions of the early practice, the draftsmen of the federal rules sought to liberate pleaders from the inhibiting requirement of technical consistency. 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1283, at 533 (2d ed. 1990). The flexibility afforded by Rule 8(e)(2) is especially appropriate in civil rights cases, in which complex inquiries into the parties’ intent may sometimes justify raising multiple, inconsistent claims. See, e.g., MacFarlane v. Grasso, 696 F.2d 217, 224-25 (2d Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); Wright v. Olin Corp., 697 F.2d 1172, 1184

A: holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy
B: recognizing that production of a written insurance policy was unnecessary to prove the existence of the policy because the proof required was proof of the fact of insurance and not of the contents of a writing
C: holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth
D: holding that  1983 plaintiff conceded existence of disputed agency policy only to the extent that he challenged the constitutionality of that policy but not for purposes of other claims
D.