A wayward Chevy struck a tree
 Whose owner sued defendants three.
 He sued car's owner, driver, too,
 And insurer for what was due
 For his oak tree that now may bear
 A lasting need for tender care.
 The Oakland County Circuit Court,
 John N. O'Brian, J., set forth
 The judgment that defendants sought,
 And quickly an appeal was brought.
 Court of Appeals, J.  H. Gillis, J.,
 Gave thought and then had this to say:
 1) There is no liability,
 Since No-Fault grants immunity,
 2) No jurisdiction can be found
 Where process service is unsound;
 And thus the judgment, as it's termed
 Is due to be, and is
 Affirmed.

 [1] AUTOMOBILES k251.13
 Defendant's Chevy struck a tree,
 There was no liability.
 The No-Fault Act comes into play,
 As owner and the driver say.
 Barred by the act's immunity,
 No suit in tort will aid the tree.
 Although the oak's in disarray,
 No court can make defendants pay.

 [2] PROCESS k4
 No jurisdiction could be found,
 Where process service is unsound.
 In personam jurisdiction
 Was not even legal fiction
 Where plaintiff failed to well comply
 With rules of court that did apply.

   * * *

 J. H. GILLIS, Judge.
 We thought that we would never see
 A suit to compensate a tree.
 A suit whose claim in tort is prest,
 Upon a mangled tree's behest;
 A tree whose battered trunk was prest
 Against a Chevy's crumpled crest;
 A tree that faces each new day
 With bark and limb in disarray;
 A tree that may forever bear
 A lasting need for tender care.
 Flora lovers though we three,
 We must affirm the court's decree.

 Affirmed.