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
<PAGE>
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.
<PAGE>
ITEM 7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Exhibit
1. GPU News Release, dated November 3, 1999.
<PAGE>
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
EXHIBIT TO BE FILED BY EDGAR
----------------------------
(c) 1 GPU News Release, dated November 3, 1999.
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
