8-K

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 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):                 November 2, 1999



Commission      Registrant, State of Incorporation,         I.R.S. Employer
File Number     Address and Telephone Number                Identification No.
- -----------     ----------------------------                ------------------

1-6047          GPU, Inc.                                       13-5516989
                (a Pennsylvania corporation)
                300 Madison Avenue
                Morristown, New Jersey 07962-1911
                Telephone (973) 455-8200


1-3141          Jersey Central Power & Light Company           21-0485010
                (a New Jersey corporation)
                2800 Pottsville Pike
                Reading, Pennsylvania 19640-0001
                Telephone (610) 929-3601


1-446       Metropolitan Edison Company                         23-0870160
                (a Pennsylvania corporation)
                2800 Pottsville Pike
                Reading, Pennsylvania 19640-0001
                Telephone (610) 929-3601


1-3522          Pennsylvania Electric Company                   25-0718085
                (a Pennsylvania corporation)
                2800 Pottsville Pike
                Reading, Pennsylvania 19640-0001
                Telephone (610) 929-3601








ITEM 5.     OTHER EVENTS.
            -------------

      As previously reported, following the March 1979 nuclear accident at Three
Mile  Island  Unit No. 2,  approximately  2100  individual  claims  for  alleged
personal injury (including punitive damage claims ) were filed against GPU, Inc.
and its  domestic  utility  subsidiary  companies  (GPU  Energy  companies)  and
consolidated  before the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.  In 1996, the District Court granted a motion for summary judgment
filed by GPU,  Inc. and the GPU Energy  companies and dismissed not only the ten
test cases which had been selected for a test case trial, but also all remaining
pending claims.  The District Court ruled,  among other things,  that plaintiffs
failed  to offer  evidence  which  created a genuine  issue of a  material  fact
warranting  submission of their claims to a jury.  Plaintiffs  then appealed the
District  Court  ruling to the Court of  Appeals  for the Third  Circuit  (Third
Circuit).

      On November 2, 1999,  the Third  Circuit  affirmed  the  District  Court's
dismissal of the ten test cases,  but set aside the dismissal of the  additional
pending claims, remanding them to the District Court for further proceedings. In
remanding these claims, the Third Circuit held that the District Court had erred
in extending its summary judgment  decision to the other plaintiffs and imposing
on these plaintiffs the District Court's finding that radiation  exposures below
10 rems were too  speculative  to  establish a causal link to cancer.  The Third
Circuit stated that the non-test case plaintiffs  should be permitted to present
their own  individual  evidence  that  exposure to  radiation  from the accident
caused their cancers.

      GPU, Inc. and the GPU Energy companies  believe that the Third Circuit has
misinterpreted  the  record  before  the  District  Court as it  applies  to the
non-test  case  plaintiffs  and are  considering  asking the Third  Circuit  for
reconsideration or rehearing of its decision.

      There can be no assurance as to the outcome of this litigation.





ITEM 7.     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS.
            -------------------------------------------------------------------

      (c)   Exhibit

            1. GPU News Release, dated November 3, 1999.






                                    SIGNATURE

      PURSUANT TO THE  REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES  EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, THE
REGISTRANTS  HAVE DULY CAUSED  THIS  REPORT TO BE SIGNED ON THEIR  BEHALF BY THE
UNDERSIGNED THEREUNTO DULY AUTHORIZED.


                              GPU, INC.
                              JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
                              METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
                              PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY


                              By:  /s/ T. G. Howson
                                  ------------------------------
                                   T. G. Howson, Vice President
                                   and Treasurer


Date:   November 5, 1999

EX-99

                          EXHIBIT TO BE FILED BY EDGAR
                          ----------------------------



(c) 1      GPU News Release, dated November 3, 1999.

EX-99

                                                             Exhibit (c) 1


News Release
GPU, Inc.


                   GPU, Inc. Comments on Third Circuit Court's
                Ruling Regarding Personal Injury Claims from TMI-2


      Morristown,  NJ -- The Court of Appeals  for the Third  Circuit  yesterday
affirmed  the  dismissal  of the ten "test  cases"  involving  the 1979  nuclear
accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2. The Court also set aside the  dismissal of
another  2000  claims  and sent them  back to the  District  Court  for  further
proceedings.

      The  District  Court  dismissed  the ten  cases  on the  grounds  that the
plaintiffs' expert witnesses were scientifically unreliable.

      "In remanding the remaining  2000 cases to the District  Court for further
proceedings,  the Court of  Appeals  held that the  District  Court had erred in
applying its summary judgment decision to dismiss the other  plaintiffs'  cases,
and in imposing on these other  plaintiffs,  the District  Court's  finding that
radiation  exposures  below 10 rems were too  speculative  to establish a causal
link to cancer.  The Court of Appeals  stated  that these  plaintiffs  should be
permitted to attempt to show that doses below this level induced or caused their
cancers.

            "We  believe  that the  Court of  Appeals  was  under  the  mistaken
impression  that the  experts  the  plaintiffs  relied on were only  serving  as
experts  for  the  "test  case"  plaintiffs,   and  that  the  summary  judgment
proceedings had not involved any plaintiffs other than the test case plaintiffs,
until the point that judgment was entered," said A. H. Wilcox,  attorney for the
defendants. In fact, both of these impressions are contradicted by the record in
the District Court,  and defendants are considering what steps might be taken to
bring this to the Court of Appeals' attention," he added.


                                      -XX-

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

Contacts:

     GPU - Ned Raynolds, (973) 455-8294