8-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 19, 2010

CRANE CO.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

DELAWARE

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)

1-1657	13-1952290
(Commission File Number)	(IRS Employer Identification No.)
100 First Stamford Place, Stamford, CT	06902
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (203) 363-7300

N/A

(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

¨ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

¨ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

¨ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

¨ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

SECTION 2 – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition.

On April 19, 2010, Crane Co. announced its results of operations for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. 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.

SECTION 5 – Corporate Governance and Management

Item 5.07 Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

a) The Annual Meeting of Shareholders was held on April 19, 2010.

b) The following three Directors were elected to serve for three years until the Annual Meeting in 2013.

Ms. Karen E. Dykstra
Votes for	49,658,965
Votes against	1,127,576
Abstained	138,529
Broker non-votes	4,145,719
Mr. Richard S. Forte
Votes for	49,898,197
Votes against	879,381
Abstained	147,492
Broker non-votes	4,145,719
Mr. James L. L. Tullis
Votes for	48,696,944
Votes against	694,519
Abstained	1,533,606
Broker non-votes	4,145,719

The shareholders approved the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as independent auditors for the Company for 2010.

Votes for	53,499,658
Votes against	1,439,400
Abstained	131,730

SECTION 8 – OTHER EVENTS

Item 8.01 Other Events

Asbestos Liability

Information Regarding Claims and Costs in the Tort System

As of March 31, 2010, 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,
	2010		2009		2009
Beginning claims	66,341		74,872		74,872
New claims	913		847		3,664
Settlements*	(290	)	(165	)	(1,024	)
Dismissals	(467	)	(288	)	(11,171	)
Other **	982		—		—
Ending claims **	67,479		75,266		66,341

* Includes Joseph Norris and Earl Haupt judgments.

** Does not include 33,714 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. In 2009, the court initiated a process to review these claims. In March 2010, 982 of such claims were restored to active status and 2,734 of such claims were permanently dismissed as a result of the review process. The Company expects additional claims will be activated or permanently dismissed as the review process continues.

Of the 67,479 pending claims as of March 31, 2010, approximately 25,100 claims were pending in New York, approximately 14,200 claims were pending in Mississippi, approximately 9,900 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.

2

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in an asbestos matter. The first 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. The second payment in the amount of $0.02 million, was made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009. Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company’s incurred costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final payment amount is determined.

During the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008, the Company tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one of which, the Patrick O’Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on appeal and is currently the subject of further appellate proceedings before the Supreme Court of California, which accepted review of the matter by order dated December 23, 2009.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with compensatory damages of $2.45 million and additional damages of $11.9 million. The Company’s post-trial motions were denied by order dated January 5, 2009. The Company intends to pursue all available rights to appeal the verdict.

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 $0.68 million 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 the Company was responsible for one-half of one percent (0.5%) of plaintiffs’ damages of $16.93 million; however, based on California court rules regarding allocation and damages, judgment was entered against the Company in the amount of $1.65 million, plus costs. Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with the trial court requesting judgment in the Company’s favor notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, and on June 30, 2009 the court advised that the Company’s motion was granted and judgment was entered in favor of the Company. The plaintiffs have appealed that ruling.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, state court jury found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5 million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. Both the Company and the plaintiffs have filed post-trial motions, and judgment will be entered after those motions are resolved. If necessary, the Company intends to pursue all available rights to appeal the verdicts.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 totaled $27.5 million and $22.3 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 payments for settlement and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 totaled an $11.1 million net payment and a $2.7 million net receipt, (reflecting the receipt of $14.5 million for full policy buyout from Highlands Insurance Company (“Highlands”)), respectively. Detailed below are the comparable amounts for the periods indicated.

3

(in millions)	Three Months Ended March 31,						Year Ended December 31,
	2010			2009			2009
Settlement / indemnity costs incurred (1)	$	15.5		$	8.9		$	58.3
Defense costs incurred (1)		12.0			13.4			51.8
Total costs incurred	$	27.5		$	22.3		$	110.1
Settlement / indemnity payments	$	12.5		$	10.3		$	57.3
Defense payments		11.4			8.7			52.2
Insurance receipts (2)		(12.8	)		(21.7	)		(53.7	)
Pre-tax cash payments (receipts) (2)	$	11.1		$	(2.7	)	$	55.8

(1) Before insurance recoveries and tax effects.

(2) The three months ended March 31, 2009 includes a $14.5 million payment from Highlands in January 2009.

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 March 31, 2010, the Company has resolved (by settlement or dismissal) approximately 69,600 claims. The related settlement cost incurred by the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $243 million, for an average cost per resolved claim of $3,493. The average cost per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 was $4,781 and $4,186 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.

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 a base reference period consisting of 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 to the results of previously conducted epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would be filed against the Company 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 the Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of the Company’s asbestos liability for pending and future claims, based on claim experience over the past two to three years and covering claims expected to be filed through the indicated period. The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are (1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the methodology used by HR&A will also show claims and costs for periods subsequent to the indicated

4

period (up to and including the endpoint of the asbestos studies referred to above), management believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the various factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too great to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for years beyond the indicated estimate.

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 approximately 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. Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company’s experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed during the updated reference period as well as average settlement costs by disease category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer, asbestosis and other non-malignant conditions) during that period. Management discusses these trends and their effect on the liability estimate with HR&A and determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted. As part of this process the Company also takes into account trends in the tort system such as those enumerated above. As of March 31, 2010, the Company’s actual experience during the updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed approximated the assumptions in the

5

Company’s liability estimate, while the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims were somewhat higher, but generally consistent with the prior five quarters. In addition to this claims experience, the Company considered 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. Based on this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the estimate was warranted for the period ended March 31, 2010. 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 settled claims and defense costs. The liability was $797 million as of March 31, 2010, approximately two-thirds of which is attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims projected to be filed through 2017. It is not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2017, due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion of the total estimated liability at March 31, 2010 was $100 million and represents the Company’s best estimate of total asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is based upon the HR&A model together with the Company’s prior year payment experience for both settlement and defense costs.

Insurance Coverage and Receivables. Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company’s settlement and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company for a portion of its settlement and defense costs as incurred. To date, the Company has entered into agreements providing for such reimbursements, known as “coverage-in-place”, with ten of its excess insurer groups. Under such coverage-in-place agreements, an insurer’s policies remain in force and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage for the Company’s present and future asbestos claims on specified terms and conditions that address, among other things, the share of asbestos claims costs to be paid by the insurer, payment terms, claims handling procedures and the expiration of the insurer’s obligations. The most recent such agreement became effective April 21, 2009, between the Company and Employers Mutual Casualty Company, by and through its managing general agent and attorney-in-fact Mutual Marine Office, Inc. On March 3, 2008, the Company reached agreement with certain London Market Insurance Companies, North River Insurance Company and TIG Insurance Company, confirming the aggregate amount of available coverage under certain London policies and setting forth a schedule for future reimbursement payments to the Company based on aggregate indemnity and defense payments made. In addition, with five of its excess insurer groups, the Company entered into policy buyout agreements, settling all asbestos and other coverage obligations for an agreed sum, totaling $63.2 million in aggregate. The most recent of these buyouts was reached in October 2008 with Highlands Insurance Company, which currently is in receivership in the State of Texas. The settlement agreement with Highlands was formally approved by the Texas receivership court on December 8, 2008, and Highlands paid the full settlement amount, $14.5 million, to the Company on January 12, 2009. Reimbursements from insurers for past and ongoing settlement and defense costs allocable to their policies have been made as coverage-in-place and other agreements are reached with such insurers. All of these agreements include provisions for mutual releases, indemnification of the insurer and, for coverage-in-place, claims handling procedures. The Company is in discussions with or expects to enter into additional coverage-in-place or other agreements with other of its solvent excess insurers not currently subject to a settlement agreement whose policies are expected to respond to the aggregate costs included in the updated liability estimate. If it is not successful in concluding such coverage-in-place or other agreements with such insurers, then the Company anticipates that it would pursue litigation to enforce its rights under such insurers’ policies. There are no pending legal proceedings between the Company and any insurer contesting the Company’s asbestos claims under its insurance policies.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate referenced above, the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this estimate, the Company

6

considered its coverage-in-place and other settlement agreements described above, as well as a number of additional factors. These additional factors include the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary because the Company’s insurance coverage for asbestos claims involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate described above and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other factors noted above by the Company’s legal counsel, and incorporating risk mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or other factors were not certain, the Company’s insurance consultants compiled a model indicating how the Company’s historical insurance policies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlement and defense costs and the allocation of such costs between such insurers and the Company. Using the estimated liability as of September 30, 2007 (for claims filed through 2017), the insurance consultant’s model forecasted that approximately 33% of the liability would be reimbursed by the Company’s insurers. An asset of $351 million was recorded as of September 30, 2007 representing the probable insurance reimbursement for such claims. The asset is reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are received. The asset was $235 million as of March 31, 2010.

The Company reviews the aforementioned estimated reimbursement rate with its insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order to confirm its overall consistency with the Company’s established reserves. Since September 2007, there have been no developments that have caused the Company to change the estimated 33% rate, although actual insurance reimbursements vary from period to period for the reasons cited above. While there are overall limits on the aggregate amount of insurance available to the Company with respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were not reached by the total estimated liability currently recorded by the Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company in its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion of the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the asbestos liability (for claims filed through 2017) that is in excess of available insurance coverage allocated to such years.

Uncertainties. Estimation of the Company’s ultimate exposure for asbestos-related claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and quantity of claims. The Company cautions that its estimated liability is based on assumptions with respect to future claims, settlement and defense costs based on recent experience during the last few years that may not prove reliable as predictors. A significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the product identification, or a significant upward or downward trend in the costs of defending claims, could change the estimated liability, as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial. A legislative solution or a revised structured settlement transaction could also change the estimated liability.

The same factors that affect developing estimates of probable settlement and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities also affect estimates of the probable insurance payments, as do a number of additional factors. These additional factors include the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, due to the uncertainties inherent in litigation matters, no assurances can be given regarding the outcome of any litigation, if necessary, to enforce the Company’s rights under its insurance policies.

7

Many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation, and the Company will continue to evaluate its estimated asbestos-related liability and corresponding estimated insurance reimbursement as well as the underlying assumptions and process used to derive these amounts. These uncertainties may result in the Company incurring future charges or increases to income to adjust the carrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly if the number of claims and settlement and defense costs change significantly or if legislation or another alternative solution is implemented; however, the Company is currently unable to estimate such future changes and, accordingly, 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 determined. Although the resolution of these claims may take many years, the effect on the results of operations, financial position and cash flow in any given period from a revision to these estimates could be material.

8

SECTION 9 – FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(a) None

(b) None

(c) None

(d) Exhibits

99.1 Earnings Press Release dated April 19, 2010, issued by Crane Co.

99.2 Crane Co. Quarterly Financial Data Supplement for the quarter ended March 31, 2010

9

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

	CRANE CO.
Dated: April 19, 2010	By:	/S/    TIMOTHY J. MACCARRICK
		Timothy J. MacCarrick
		Chief Financial Officer

10

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit No.	Description
99.1	Earnings Press Release dated April 19, 2010, issued by Crane Co.
99.2	Crane Co. Quarterly Financial Data Supplement for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

11

EX-99.1

Exhibit 99.1

Crane Co.	NEWS
	Contact: Richard E. Koch Director, Investor Relations and Corporate Communications 203-363-7352 www.craneco.com

CRANE CO. REPORTS SOLID FIRST QUARTER PERFORMANCE

FULL YEAR RESULTS EXPECTED TO REACH HIGH END OF GUIDANCE

STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT – April 19, 2010 - Crane Co. (NYSE: CR), a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products, reported first quarter 2010 net income attributable to common shareholders of $33.2 million, or $0.56 per diluted share, compared to first quarter 2009 net income attributable to common shareholders of $23.3 million, or $0.40 per diluted share. Excluding Special Items in the first quarter of 2009 totaling approximately $5.0 million, or $0.08 per share, primarily associated with a legal settlement, earnings per share increased 17% from $0.48 to $0.56 in the first quarter of 2010. (Please see the attached Non-GAAP Financial Measures table.)

First quarter 2010 sales of $530.3 million decreased $24.8 million, or 4%, compared to the first quarter of 2009, resulting from a core sales decline of $44.4 million (8%), partially offset by favorable foreign currency translation of $19.2 million (4%), and an increase in sales from acquisitions net of divestitures of $0.4 million.

Operating profit for the first quarter of 2010 was $53.3 million compared to $37.9 million in the first quarter of 2009, which was adversely affected by the Special Items which amounted to $7.3

1

million on a pre-tax basis. Excluding the Special Items, operating profit of $53.4 million increased 18% from $45.2 million in 2009 and operating profit margins increased 200 basis points to 10.1% versus 8.1%. (Please see the attached Non-GAAP Financial Measures table.)

“I am very pleased with the first quarter results which reflect our strong market positions, continued investments in front-end resources, and sustained discipline on cost management. Sales were lower than the prior year by 4%, representing the smallest year-over-year decline since the third quarter of 2008, while operating profit before Special Items increased 18%, reflecting sharply improved profitability in our Aerospace and Engineered Materials businesses,” said Crane Co. president and chief executive officer, Eric C. Fast. “With better than anticipated results in the first quarter and current order trends, we now expect 2010 earnings per share to reach the high end of our guidance range of $2.15 to $2.35.”

Order backlog was $706 million at March 31, 2010, and included $22 million associated with the Merrimac Industries, Inc. acquisition completed during the first quarter of 2010, as compared to $664 million at December 31, 2009, and $724 million at March 31, 2009 which included $22 million associated with the GTC divestiture completed in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Crane Co. Completed Acquisition of Merrimac Industries

On February 3, 2010, Crane acquired Merrimac Industries, Inc. (“Merrimac”), a leader in the design and manufacture of RF Microwave components, assemblies and micro-multifunction modules (MMFM^®), for approximately $54 million including the repayment of $2.6 million of Merrimac debt.

2

Cash Flow and Financial Position

Cash provided by operating activities in the first quarter of 2010 totaled $16.8 million compared to $15.4 million in the first quarter of 2009. Free cash flow (cash provided by operating activities less capital spending) for the first quarter of 2010 was $12.7 million, compared to $5.4 million in the prior year. The Company’s cash position at March 31, 2010 was $319.6 million, as compared to $372.7 million at December 31, 2009, and $210.3 million at March 31, 2009. (Please see the Condensed Statement of Cash Flows and Non-GAAP table.)

Segment Results

All comparisons detailed in this section refer to the first quarter 2010 versus the first quarter 2009.

Aerospace & Electronics

	First Quarter						Change
(dollars in millions)	2010			2009
Sales	$	133.6		$	151.9		($	18.3	)	-12	%
Operating Profit	$	24.5		$	17.2		$	7.3		42	%
Profit Margin		18.3	%		11.3	%

First quarter 2010 sales decreased $18.3 million, or 12%, reflecting a $14.4 million decrease in Aerospace Group sales and a decrease of $3.9 million in Electronics Group revenue. The Aerospace sales decline reflected both lower commercial OEM, particularly for regional and business jets, and reduced aftermarket activity. Segment operating profit of $24.5 million, which included $1.9 million of costs associated with the acquisition of Merrimac, increased by $7.3 million, or 42%, driven by lower engineering spending in the Aerospace Group as several major development programs moved into final stage, and operating performance improvement in the Electronics Group. Operating profit margins were very strong in both the Aerospace and Electronics Groups.

3

Aerospace & Electronics order backlog was $388 million at March 31, 2010 and included $22 million associated with the Merrimac acquisition completed during the first quarter of 2010, as compared to $351 million at December 31, 2009, and $396 million at March 31, 2009 which included $22 million associated with the GTC divestiture completed in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Engineered Materials

	First Quarter						Change
(dollars in millions)	2010			2009
Sales	$	53.8		$	38.2		$	15.6	41	%
Operating Profit	$	8.5		$	1.5		$	7.1	474	%
Profit Margin		15.9	%		3.9	%

Segment sales of $53.8 million increased 41% compared to the first quarter of 2009, as a result of very strong demand in the recreational vehicle market and modest sales growth in transportation, only partially offset by continued weakness in the building products market. Operating profit of $8.5 million and operating margins of 15.9% improved significantly compared to 2009, reflecting the impact of higher sales volumes and a reduced cost base.

4

Merchandising Systems

	First Quarter						Change
(dollars in millions)	2010			2009
Sales	$	70.2		$	71.7		($	1.5	)	-2	%
Operating Profit	$	5.0		$	3.0		$	2.0		67	%
Profit Margin		7.1	%		4.2	%

Merchandising Systems sales of $70.2 million decreased $1.5 million, or 2%, reflecting flat sales in Vending Solutions and a small decline in Payment Solutions. Operating profit increased, driven by lower costs related to the consolidation of the Company’s North American vending machine production from St. Louis, Missouri to its Williston, South Carolina facility.

Fluid Handling

	First Quarter						Change
(dollars in millions)	2010			2009
Sales	$	247.8		$	266.5		($	18.7	)	-7	%
Operating Profit	$	28.0		$	36.8		($	8.8	)	-24	%
Profit Margin		11.3	%		13.8	%

First quarter 2010 sales decreased $18.7 million, or 7%, which included a core sales decline of $34.4 million (13%), partially offset by favorable foreign currency translation of $15.7 million (6%). Sales declined in the Company’s later-cycle energy, chemical and pharmaceutical businesses as continued weakness in project activity levels was only partially moderated by improving trends in MRO activity. Fluid Handling operating profit margins decreased to 11.3%

5

from last year’s level of 13.8%, primarily reflecting the impact of lower sales. Fluid Handling margins are expected to remain in the 12% - 13% range for the full year.

Fluid Handling order backlog remained stable at approximately $250 million. The backlog was $254 million at March 31, 2010, compared to $250 million at December 31, 2009, and $276 million at March 31, 2009.

Controls

	First Quarter						Change
(dollars in millions)	2010			2009
Sales	$	24.9		$	26.8		($	1.9	)	-7	%
Operating Profit	$	0.1		$	0.4		($	0.3	)	-70	%
Profit Margin		0.5	%		1.5	%

First quarter 2010 sales of $24.9 million declined 7%, reflecting continued general weakness in end market conditions offset by some improvement in oil & gas related demand.

Please see the Non-GAAP Financial Measures table attached to this press release for supporting details. Additional information with respect to the Company’s asbestos liability and related accounting provisions and cash requirements is set forth in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with a copy of this press release.

Conference Call

Crane Co. has scheduled a conference call to discuss the first quarter financial results on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 10:00 A.M. (Eastern). All interested parties may listen to a live webcast of the

6

call at http://www.craneco.com. An archived webcast will also be available to replay this conference call directly from the Company’s website.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, Crane provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls. Crane has approximately 10,000 employees in North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia. Crane Co. is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE:CR). For more information, visit www.craneco.com.

This press release may contain forward-looking statements as defined by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements present management’s expectations, beliefs, plans and objectives regarding future financial performance, and assumptions or judgments concerning such performance. Any discussions contained in this press release, except to the extent that they contain historical facts, are forward-looking and accordingly involve estimates, assumptions, judgments and uncertainties. There are a number of factors that could cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those addressed in the forward-looking statements. Such factors are detailed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 and subsequent reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

(Financial Tables Follow)

2010 – 7

7

EX-99.2

Exhibit 99.2

CRANE CO.

Income Statement Data

(in thousands, except per share data)

	Three Months Ended March 31,
	2010			2009
Net Sales:
Aerospace & Electronics	$	133,645		$	151,947
Engineered Materials		53,755			38,152
Merchandising Systems		70,171			71,694
Fluid Handling		247,789			266,497
Controls		24,931			26,849
Total Net Sales	$	530,291		$	555,139
Operating Profit:
Aerospace & Electronics	$	24,489		$	17,233
Engineered Materials		8,540			1,487
Merchandising Systems		4,969			2,980
Fluid Handling		27,989			36,767
Controls		126			414
Corporate		(12,833	)		(20,997	)	*
Total Operating Profit		53,280			37,884
Interest Income		225			843
Interest Expense		(6,726	)		(6,770	)
Miscellaneous- Net		(21	)		1,711
Income Before Income Taxes		46,758			33,668
Provision for Income Taxes		13,574			10,238
Net income before allocations to noncontrolling interests		33,184			23,430
Less: Noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries' earnings (losses)		(50	)		119
Net income attributable to common shareholders		33,234			23,311
Share Data:
Earnings per Diluted Share	$	0.56		$	0.40
Average Diluted Shares Outstanding		59,570			58,543
Average Basic Shares Outstanding		58,650			58,453
Supplemental Data:
Cost of Sales	$	352,271		$	382,010
Selling, General & Administrative		124,740			135,245
Depreciation and Amortization **		14,437			15,053
Stock-Based Compensation Expense		3,172			2,062

* Includes a charge of $7.75 million related to the settlement of a lawsuit.

** Amount included within cost of sales and selling, general & administrative costs.

CRANE CO.

Condensed Balance Sheets

(in thousands)

	March 31, 2010		December  31, 2009
ASSETS
Current Assets
Cash and Cash Equivalents	$	319,584	$	372,714
Accounts Receivable, net		311,914		282,463
Current Insurance Receivable - Asbestos		35,300		35,300
Inventories, net		296,708		284,552
Other Current Assets		72,430		71,317
Total Current Assets		1,035,936		1,046,346
Property, Plant and Equipment, net		285,715		285,224
Long-Term Insurance Receivable - Asbestos		200,184		213,004
Other Assets		407,859		406,346
Goodwill		774,556		761,978
Total Assets	$	2,704,250	$	2,712,898
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities
Notes Payable and Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt	$	879	$	1,078
Accounts Payable		155,966		142,390
Current Asbestos Liability		100,300		100,300
Accrued Liabilities		209,627		218,864
Income Taxes		4,300		4,150
Total Current Liabilities		471,072		466,782
Long-Term Debt		398,602		398,557
Long-Term Deferred Tax Liability		29,272		29,578
Long-Term Asbestos Liability		696,768		720,713
Other Liabilities		201,660		203,566
Total Equity		906,876		893,702
Total Liabilities and Equity	$	2,704,250	$	2,712,898

CRANE CO.

Condensed Statements of Cash Flows

(in thousands)

	Three Months Ended March 31
	2010			2009
Operating Activities:
Net income attributable to common shareholders	$	33,234		$	23,311
Noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries’ earnings (losses)		(50	)		119
Net income before allocations to noncontrolling interests		33,184			23,430
Depreciation and amortization		14,437			15,053
Stock-based compensation expense		3,172			2,062
Deferred income taxes		6,682			8,694
Cash used for operating working capital		(31,687	)		(27,619	)
Other		2,155			(8,892	)
Subtotal		27,943			12,728
Asbestos related payments, net of insurance recoveries		(11,125	)		2,656		*
Total provided by operating activities		16,818			15,384
Investing Activities:
Capital expenditures		(4,119	)		(9,974	)
Proceeds from disposition of capital assets		—			1,703
Payment for acquisition - net of cash acquired		(51,167	)		—
Total used for investing activities		(55,286	)		(8,271	)
Financing Activities:
Dividends paid		(11,743	)		(11,688	)
Stock options exercised - net of shares reacquired		4,714			(637	)
Excess tax benefit from stock-based compensation		391			—
Change in short-term debt		(3,046	)		(9,316	)
Total used for financing activities		(9,684	)		(21,641	)
Effect of exchange rate on cash and cash equivalents		(4,978	)		(6,997	)
Decrease in cash and cash equivalents		(53,130	)		(21,525	)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		372,714			231,840
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	319,584		$	210,315

* Includes a $14.5 million insurance settlement receipt from the Highlands Insurance Company.

CRANE CO.

Order Backlog

(in thousands)

	March 31, 2010		December 31, 2009		September 30 2009		June 30, 2009		March 31, 2009
Aerospace & Electronics	$	388,169	$	351,004	$	369,898	$	383,335	$	396,393
Engineered Materials		14,810		12,070		8,454		9,135		6,924
Merchandising Systems		21,947		23,522		23,574		19,955		18,822
Fluid Handling		253,946		249,901		252,333		256,467		275,660
Controls		26,910		27,958		27,292		28,026		26,667
Total Backlog	$	705,782	$	664,455	$	681,551	$	696,918	$	724,466

CRANE CO.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

(in thousands)

	Three Months Ended March 31,							Percent Change March 31, 2010
	2010			2009				Three Months
INCOME ITEMS
Net Sales	$	530,291		$	555,139			-4.5	%
Operating Profit		53,280			37,884
Special Items impacting Operating Profit:
Lawsuit Settlement—Pre-Tax (a)		—			7,750
Restructuring Charges (Gains)- Pre-Tax		135			(448	)
Operating Profit before Special Items	$	53,415		$	45,186			18.2	%
Percentage of Sales		10.1	%		8.1	%
Net Income Attributable to Common Shareholders	$	33,234		$	23,311
Per Share	$	0.56		$	0.40
Special Items impacting Net Income Attributable to Common Shareholders:
Lawsuit Settlement—Net of Tax (a)		—			5,038
Per Share		—		$	0.09
Restructuring Charges (Gains)—Net of Tax		96			(291	)
Per Share	$	0.00		$	(0.00	)
Net Income Attributable To Common Shareholders Before Special Items	$	33,330		$	28,058			18.8	%
Per Share	$	0.56		$	0.48			16.7	%
(a)    During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company recorded a charge for the settlement of a lawsuit.
	Three Months Ended March 31,
	2010			2009
CASH FLOW ITEMS
Cash Provided from Operating Activities before Asbestos—Related Payments	$	27,943		$	12,728
Asbestos Related Payments, Net of Insurance Recoveries		(11,125	)		2,656		*
Cash Provided from Operating Activities		16,818			15,384
Less: Capital Expenditures		(4,119	)		(9,974	)
Free Cash Flow	$	12,699		$	5,410

* Includes a $14.5 million insurance settlement receipt from the Highlands Insurance Company.

Certain non-GAAP measures have been provided to facilitate comparison with the prior year.

The Company reports its financial results in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). However, management believes that non-GAAP financial measures which exclude certain non-recurring items present additional useful comparisons between current results and results in prior operating periods, providing investors with a clearer view of the underlying trends of the business. Management also uses these non-GAAP financial measures in making financial, operating, planning and compensation decisions and in evaluating the Company’s performance. In addition, Free Cash Flow provides supplemental information to assist management and investors in analyzing the Company’s ability to generate positive cash flow. Non-GAAP financial measures, which may be inconsistent with similarly captioned measures presented by other companies, should be viewed in addition to, and not as a substitute for, the Company’s reported results prepared in accordance with GAAP.