On April 20, 2009, Crane Co. announced its results of operations for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Copies of the related press release and quarterly financial data supplement are being furnished as Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2 to this Form 8-K.

The information furnished under Item 2.02 of this Current Report on Form 8-K, including Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2, is not deemed to be "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Asbestos Liability

Information Regarding Claims and Costs in the Tort System

As of March 31, 2009, the Company was a defendant in cases filed in various
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 March 31,        Year Ended
                                                                 December 31,
                                 2009               2008             2008
          Beginning claims         74,872             80,999           80,999
          New claims                  847              1,041            4,671
          Settlements*               (165 )             (337 )         (1,236 )
          Dismissals                 (288 )             (600 )         (9,562 )

          Ending claims **         75,266             81,103           74,872

* Includes Norris judgment.

** Does not include 34,551 maritime actions that were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to an order by the Federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("MDL"). These claims have been placed on the inactive docket of cases that are administratively dismissed without prejudice in the MDL.

Of the 75,266 pending claims as of March 31, 2009, approximately 25,000 claims were pending in New York, approximately 18,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, approximately 9,500 claims were pending in Texas and approximately 2,100 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.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company has paid one judgment arising from an adverse jury verdict in an asbestos matter. That payment, in the amount of $2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after the adverse verdict, in the Joseph Norris matter in California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies. Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred costs until available appeals are exhausted and the final payment amount is determined.

On May 16, 2008 the Company received an adverse verdict in the Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles, California. The amount of the judgment entered was approximately $679,000 plus interest and costs. The Company is pursuing an appeal in this matter.

On February 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in the Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found that Company was responsible for one-half of one percent (0.5%) of plaintiffs' damages of $16,925,000; however, based on California court rules regarding allocation of damages, plaintiffs have requested a judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.65 million, plus costs. The court has not yet entered judgment on the verdict, and the Company will pursue post-trial relief once the court enters judgment.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company in the three-month period ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 totaled $22.3 million and $22.5 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of settlement and defense costs that 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 quarter to quarter. Cash payments of settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other required documentation are received by the Company, 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. The Company's total pre-tax receipts/payments for settlement and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, in the three-month period ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 totaled a $2.7 million net receipt, (reflecting the receipt of $14.5 million for full policy buyout from Highlands Insurance Company ("Highlands")), and a $2.1 million net payment, respectively. Detailed below are the comparable amounts for the periods indicated.

                                                                                                    Cumulative to
                                                                                  Year Ended        Date Through
(in millions)                             Three Months Ended March 31,           December 31,         March 31,
                                           2009                   2008               2008               2009
Settlement / indemnity costs
incurred (1)                          $          8.9         $         10.4     $         45.2     $         178.2
Defense costs incurred (1)                      13.4                   12.1               51.9               227.7

Total costs incurred                  $         22.3         $         22.5     $         97.1     $         405.9


Pre-tax cash (receipts) /
payments (2)                          $         (2.7 )       $          2.1     $         58.1     $         191.3

(1) Before insurance recoveries and tax effects.

(2) Net of payment received from insurers. The three months ended March 31, 2009 includes a $14.5 million payment from Highlands in January 2009. There were no comparable policy settlements in the 2008 period.

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.

Effects on the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by the Company 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 HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company's experience during the two full preceding calendar years (and additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for claims filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience is then compared

In the Company's 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 over the past five to ten years 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 are estimated to provide $25 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 the Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods. Accordingly, the Company's management monitors these trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an alternative forecast period is appropriate.

Liability Estimate. With the assistance of HR&A, effective as of September 30, 2007, the Company updated and extended its estimate of the asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected to be filed against the Company through 2017. The Company's previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed through 2011. As a result of this updated estimate, the Company recorded an additional liability of $586 million as of September 30, 2007. The Company's decision to take this action at such date was based on several factors. First, the number of asbestos claims being filed against the Company has moderated substantially over the past several years, and in the Company's opinion, the outlook for asbestos claims expected to be filed and resolved in the forecast period is reasonably stable. Second, these claim trends are particularly true for mesothelioma claims, which although constituting only 5% of the Company's total pending asbestos claims, have accounted for approximately 90% of the Company's aggregate settlement and defense costs over the past five years. Third, federal legislation that would significantly change the nature of asbestos litigation failed to pass in 2006, and in the Company's opinion, the prospects for such legislation at the federal level are remote. Fourth, there have been significant actions taken by certain state legislatures and courts over the past several years that have reduced the number and types of claims that can proceed to trial, which has been a significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos claim activity. Fifth, the Company has now entered into coverage-in-place agreements with a majority of its excess insurers, which enables the Company to project a more stable relationship between settlement and defense costs paid by the Company and reimbursements from its insurers. Taking all of these factors into account, the Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos liability for pending claims and future claims to be filed through 2017. While it is probable that the Company will incur additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not believe that any such amount can be reasonably estimated beyond 2017. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be incurred for claims made subsequent to 2017.

Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2017 based on the analysis by HR&A completed in October 2007. A liability of $1,055 million was recorded as of September 30, 2007 to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently asserted through 2017. The liability is reduced when cash payments are made in respect of