Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition.

On January 27, 2020, Crane Co. (the "Company") announced its results of operations for the quarter ended December 31, 2019. The related press release and quarterly financial data supplement is being furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K.

The information furnished under Item 2.02 of this Current Report on Form 8-K, including Exhibit 99.1, is not deemed to be "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




Item 8.01 Other Events

Asbestos Liability Information Regarding Claims and Costs in the Tort System As of December 31, 2019, we were a defendant in cases filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. Activity related to asbestos claims during the periods indicated was as follows: For the year ended December 31, 2019 2018 2017 Beginning claims

                29,089     32,234     36,052
New claims                       2,848      2,434      2,819
Settlements                       (983 )   (1,011 )   (1,038 )
Dismissals                      (1,898 )   (4,568 )   (5,599 )
Ending claims                   29,056     29,089     32,234

Of the 29,056 pending claims as of December 31, 2019, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York, approximately 100 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 300 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits. We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. We further have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. We have also tried several other cases resulting in plaintiff verdicts which we paid or settled after unsuccessful appeals, the most recent of which are described below. On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found us responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim. On February 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdict in the amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against us and two other defendants, with additional interest in the amount of $0.01 million being assessed against us, only. All defendants, including us, and the plaintiffs took timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. On September 5, 2013, a panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson verdict against all defendants, reversing and remanding for a new trial. Plaintiffs requested a rehearing in the Superior Court and by order dated November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the panel opinion, and granted en banc reargument. On December 23, 2014, the Superior Court issued a second opinion reversing the jury verdict. Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which defendants opposed. By order dated June 21, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal. The case was set for a new trial in April 2018. We settled the matter. The settlement was reflected in the second quarter 2018 indemnity amount. On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury found us responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5 million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a $2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were consolidated for trial. We filed post-trial motions requesting judgments in our favor notwithstanding the jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. We appealed, and on April 17, 2015, a panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania accepted our petition for review and heard oral arguments on September 13, 2016. On November 22, 2016, the Court dismissed our appeal as improvidently granted. We paid the Vinciguerra judgment in the amount of $0.6 million in the fourth quarter 2016. We paid the Amato judgment, with interest, in the amount of $0.3 million in the second quarter of 2017.



                                       2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35 million verdict
against us in the Ivo Peraica claim. We filed post-trial motions seeking to
overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which we
argue was excessive under New York appellate case law governing awards for
non-economic losses and further were subject to settlement offsets. After the
trial court remitted the verdict to $18 million, but otherwise denied our
post-trial motion, judgment was entered against us in the amount of $10.6
million (including interest). We appealed. We took a separate appeal of the
trial court's denial of our summary judgment motion. The Court consolidated the
appeals, which were heard in the fourth quarter of 2014. In July 2016, we
supplemented our briefing based on the New York Court of Appeals Dummitt/Suttner
decision. On October 6, 2016, a panel of the Appellate Division, First
Department, affirmed the rulings of the trial court on liability issues but
further reduced the damages award to $4.25 million, which after settlement
offsets was calculated to be $1.94 million. Plaintiff had the option of
accepting the reduced amount or having a new trial on damages. We filed a motion
with the Appellate Division requesting a rehearing on liability issues. The
motion was denied. The New York Court of Appeals also denied review. We paid the
Peraica judgment in the amount of $2.7 million in the first quarter of 2017.
On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury in the
Richard DeLisle claim found us responsible for 16% of an $8 million verdict. The
trial court denied all parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against
us in the amount of $1.3 million. We appealed and oral argument on the appeal
took place on February 16, 2016. On September 14, 2016, a panel of the Florida
Court of Appeals reversed and entered judgment in favor of us. Plaintiff filed
with the Court of Appeals a motion for rehearing and/or certification of an
appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, which the Court denied on November 9, 2016.
Plaintiffs subsequently requested review by the Supreme Court of Florida.
Plaintiffs' motion was granted on July 11, 2017. Oral argument took place on
March 6, 2018. On October 15, 2018, the Supreme Court of Florida reversed and
remanded with instructions to reinstate the trial court's judgment. We paid the
judgment on December 28, 2018.  That payment is reflected in the fourth quarter
2018 indemnity amount.
On June 16, 2014, a New York City state court jury entered a $15 million verdict
against us in the Ivan Sweberg claim and a $10 million verdict against us in the
Selwyn Hackshaw claim. The two claims were consolidated for trial. We filed
post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdicts, to grant new trials, or to
reduce the damages, which were denied, except that the Court reduced the Sweberg
award to $10 million, and reduced the Hackshaw award to $6 million. Judgments
were entered in the amount of $5.3 million in Sweberg and $3.1 million in
Hackshaw. We appealed. Oral argument on Sweberg took place on February 16, 2016,
and oral argument on Hackshaw took place on March 9, 2016. On October 6, 2016,
two panels of the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the rulings of
the trial court on liability issues but further reduced the Sweberg damages
award to $9.5 million and further reduced the Hackshaw damages award to $3
million, which after settlement offsets are calculated to be $4.73 million in
Sweberg and $0 in Hackshaw. Plaintiffs were given the option of accepting the
reduced awards or having new trials on damages. Plaintiffs subsequently brought
an appeal in Hackshaw before the New York Court of Appeals, which the Court
denied. We filed a motion with the Appellate Division requesting a rehearing on
liability issues in Sweberg. That motion was denied. The New York Court of
Appeals also denied review. We paid in the first quarter of 2017 the Sweberg
plaintiffs $5.7 million, which was the amount owed under this judgment. No
damages were owed in Hackshaw.
On July 2, 2015, a St. Louis, Missouri state court jury in the James Poage claim
entered a $1.5 million verdict for compensatory damages against us. The jury
also awarded exemplary damages against us in the amount of $10 million. We filed
a motion seeking to reduce the verdict to account for the verdict set-offs. That
motion was denied, and judgment was entered against us in the amount of $10.8
million. We initiated an appeal. Oral argument was held on December 13, 2016. In
an opinion dated May 2, 2017, a Missouri Court of Appeals panel affirmed the
judgment in all respects.  The Court of Appeals denied our motion to transfer
the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri. We sought leave to appeal before the
Supreme Court of Missouri, which denied that request. The Supreme Court of the
United States denied further review on March 26, 2018. We settled the matter.
The settlement was reflected in the second quarter 2018 indemnity amount.
On February 9, 2016, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, federal court jury found us
responsible for a 30% share of a $1.085 million verdict in the Valent Rabovsky
claim. The court ordered briefing on the amount of the judgment. We argued,
among other things, that settlement offsets reduce the award to plaintiff under
Pennsylvania law. A further hearing was held April 26, 2016, after which the
court denied our request and entered judgment in the amount of $0.4 million. We
filed post-trial motions, which were denied in two decisions issued on August
26, 2016 and September 28, 2016. We pursued an appeal to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals, which was argued on June 12, 2017. On September 27, 2017, the Court
entered an order asking the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to decide one of the
issues raised in our appeal. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania accepted the
request, and we settled the matter. The settlement was reflected in the fourth
quarter 2017 indemnity amount.
On April 22, 2016, a Phoenix, Arizona federal court jury found us responsible
for a 20% share of a $9 million verdict in the George Coulbourn claim, and
further awarded exemplary damages against us in the amount of $5 million.  The
jury also awarded compensatory and exemplary damages against the other defendant
present at trial.  The court entered judgment against us in the amount of $6.8
million. We filed post-trial motions, which were denied on September 20, 2016.
We pursued an

                                       3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment on
March 29, 2018. We settled the matter.  The settlement was reflected in the
second quarter 2018 indemnity amount.
On June 30, 2017, a New York City state court jury entered a $20 million verdict
against us in the Geoffrey Anisansel claim. We settled the matter in August
2017. The settlement was reflected in the third quarter 2017 indemnity amount.
Such judgment amounts were not included in our incurred costs until all
available appeals are exhausted and the final payment amount is determined.
The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and
tax effects) by us for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 totaled
$66.2 million, $88.8 million and $88.3 million, respectively. In contrast to the
recognition of settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of
activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort
system activity by several months or more, and may show some fluctuation from
period to period. Cash payments of settlement amounts are not made until all
releases and other required documentation are received by us, and reimbursements
of both settlement amounts and defense costs by insurers may be uneven due to
insurer payment practices, transitions from one insurance layer to the next
excess layer and the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. Our
total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs, net of funds received
from insurers, for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 totaled
$41.5 million, $63.9 million and $62.5 million, respectively. Detailed below are
the comparable amounts for the periods indicated.
(in millions)
For the year ended December 31,           2019       2018       2017

Settlement / indemnity costs incurred * $ 45.5 $ 63.0 $ 51.8 Defense costs incurred *

                  20.7       25.8       36.5
Total costs incurred                    $ 66.2     $ 88.8     $ 88.3

Settlement / indemnity payments         $ 38.9     $ 61.5     $ 51.7
Defense payments                          21.4       26.5       38.9
Insurance receipts                       (18.8 )    (24.1 )    (28.1 )
Pre-tax cash payments                   $ 41.5     $ 63.9     $ 62.5


* Before insurance recoveries and tax effects.
The amounts shown for settlement and defense costs incurred, and cash payments,
are not necessarily indicative of future period amounts, which may be higher or
lower than those reported.
Cumulatively through December 31, 2019, we have resolved (by settlement or
dismissal) approximately 139,000 claims. The related settlement cost incurred by
us and our insurance carriers is approximately $640 million, for an average
settlement cost per resolved claim of approximately $4,600. The average
settlement cost per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2019,
2018 and 2017 was $15,800, $11,300, and $7,800, respectively. Because claims are
sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as
well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to
period. In addition to large group dismissals, the nature of the disease and
corresponding settlement amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes
from period to period in the average settlement cost per claim. Accordingly, the
average cost per resolved claim is not considered in our periodic review of our
estimated asbestos liability. For a discussion regarding the four most
significant factors affecting the liability estimate, see "Effects on the
Consolidated Financial Statements".
Effects on the Consolidated Financial Statements
We have retained an independent actuarial firm to assist management in
estimating our asbestos liability in the tort system. The actuarial consultants
review information provided by us concerning claims filed, settled and
. . .

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.





     (a)     None

     (b)     None

     (c)     None

     (d)     Exhibits

  99.1         Earnings Press Release dated January 27, 2020 and Crane Co. Quarterly
             Financial Data Supplement for the quarter ended December 31, 2019




                                       8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Edgar Online, source Glimpses