"There is no rule that provides a named specifically endorsed loss-payee mortgagee is not covered if it does not actually at the time of loss hold a mortgage in the name of the insured." Liberty National Fire Ins. Co. v. F M Bank Trust Co., 189 Ga. App. 759, 761 (1) ( 377 S.E.2d 528) (1989). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals erred when it held that American Central was precluded from being subrogated to Citizen Banks' rights in the property under the insurance policy.

Viccaro v. Milunsky, 551 N.E.2d at 10 n. 3. The defendants' basic argument is that the Reeds have not suffered any legally cognizable injury. The argument adopts the analysis of the majority of the Supreme Court of North Carolina in its four-three decision in Azzolino v. Dingfelder, 377 S.E.2d 528. That court said: "Courts which purport to analyze wrongful birth claims in terms of `traditional' tort analysis are able to proceed to this point [ i.e., injury] but no further before their `traditional' analysis leaves all tradition behind or begins to break down.