Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition.




On July 27, 2020, Crane Co. (the "Company") announced its results of operations
for the quarter ended June 30, 2020. 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
Information Regarding Claims and Costs in the Tort System
As of June 30, 2020, 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:
                   Three Months Ended       Six Months Ended      Year Ended
                        June 30,                June 30,         December 31,
                    2020         2019       2020        2019         2019
Beginning claims   29,162      28,498      29,056     29,089          29,089
New claims            577         769       1,258      1,444           2,848
Settlements          (264 )      (178 )      (429 )     (586 )          (983 )
Dismissals           (548 )      (238 )      (958 )   (1,096 )        (1,898 )
Ending claims      28,927      28,851      28,927     28,851          29,056


Of the 28,927 pending claims as of June 30, 2020, 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 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.

                                       2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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 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 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 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.
Such judgment amounts were not included in our incurred costs until all
available appeals were exhausted and the final payment amount was determined.
The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and
tax effects) by us for the six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019 totaled $23.9
million and $40.3 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
six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019 totaled $19.2 million and $17.9 million,
respectively. Detailed below are the comparable amounts for the periods
indicated.
                                     Three Months Ended             Six Months Ended            Year Ended
(in millions)                             June 30,                      June 30,               December 31,
                                    2020            2019           2020           2019             2019
Settlement / indemnity costs
incurred (1)                    $      7.6       $     8.6     $     15.8      $    30.0     $        45.5
Defense costs incurred (1)             3.6             5.2            8.1           10.3              20.7
Total costs incurred            $     11.2       $    13.8     $     23.9

$ 40.3 $ 66.2

Settlement / indemnity payments $ 5.9 $ 6.8 $ 16.9

   $    15.6     $        38.9
Defense payments                       4.2             6.2            8.5           10.2              21.4
Insurance receipts                    (2.7 )          (4.8 )         (6.2 )         (7.9 )           (18.8 )
Pre-tax cash payments           $      7.4       $     8.2     $     19.2      $    17.9     $        41.5



(1) 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 June 30, 2020, we have resolved (by settlement or
dismissal) approximately 140,000 claims. The related settlement cost incurred by
us and our insurance carriers is approximately $660 million, for an average
settlement cost per resolved claim of approximately $4,700. 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
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements."

                                       3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Effects on the Condensed 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
dismissed, amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the claimant, the
jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from filing to disposition of the
claim. The methodology used by the actuarial consultants to project future
asbestos costs is based on our recent historical experience for claims filed,
settled and dismissed during a base reference period. Our experience is then
compared to estimates of the number of individuals likely to develop
asbestos-related diseases determined based on widely used previously conducted
epidemiological studies augmented with current data inputs. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population of workers
believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, the actuarial
consultants estimate the number of future claims that would be filed against us
and estimates the aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred
to resolve both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement
costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has been accepted
by numerous courts. After discussions with us, the actuarial consultants augment
our liability estimate for the costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort
system using a forecast from us which is based upon discussions with our defense
counsel. Based on this information, the actuarial consultants compile an
estimate of our asbestos liability for pending and future claims using a range
of reference periods based on claim experience and covering claims expected to
be filed through the indicated forecast period. The most significant factors
affecting the liability estimate are (1) the number of new mesothelioma claims
filed against us, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3)
the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against us and (4) the aggregate
defense costs incurred by us. These factors are interdependent, and no one
factor predominates in determining the liability estimate.
In our view, the forecast period used to provide the best estimate for asbestos
claims and related liabilities and costs is a judgment based upon a number of
trend factors, including the number and type of claims being filed each year;
the jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any legislation
or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits; and the likelihood of any comprehensive
asbestos legislation at the federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos
litigation in the tort system have been significantly affected by the
substantial number of companies that have filed for bankruptcy protection,
thereby staying any asbestos claims against them until the conclusion of such
proceedings, and the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for
asbestos claimants, which have been estimated to provide $36 billion for
payments to current and future claimants. These trend factors have both positive
and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system
and the related best estimate of our asbestos liability, and these effects do
not move in a linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods.
Accordingly, management continues to monitor these trend factors over time and
periodically assesses whether an alternative forecast period is appropriate.
Each quarter, the actuarial consultants compile an update based upon our
experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed as well as average settlement
costs by disease category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer, and
non-malignant conditions including asbestosis). In addition to this claims
experience, we also consider additional quantitative and qualitative factors
such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings
and legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected future
settlement values. As part of this process, we also consider trends in the tort
system such as those enumerated above. Management considers all these factors in
conjunction with the liability estimate of the actuarial consultants and
determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted.
Liability Estimate. In June 2016, the New York State Court of Appeals issued its
opinion in Dummitt v. Crane Co., affirming a 2012 verdict for $4.9 million
. . .

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.





 (a)       None

 (b)       None

 (c)       None

 (d)       Exhibits

99.1 Earnings Press Release dated July 27, 2020 and Crane Co. Quarterly


           Financial Data Supplement for the quarter ended June 30, 2020




                                       7

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

© Edgar Online, source Glimpses