determine (2) important legal questions which are (3) completely separate from the merits of the underlying action and are (4) effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Cohen, 337 U.S. at 546, 69 S.Ct. at 1225-26. The defendants contend that the district court’s order denying their Rule 12(b)(6) mo tion to dismiss based on the Act meets these four preconditions and, therefore, is immediately appealable. Defendants argue that this issue is immediately appealable because it is analogous to the issue of immunity. They contend that the Act operates as an immunity from suit in federal court on issues related to the “business of insurance.” In support thereof, appellants cite the following: Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v.
holding that order dismissing action for failure to include plaintiffs names but giving leave to amend complaint is immediately appealable under collateral order doctrine holding that the issue of whether the attorney general was entitled to qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order holding district courts order postponing ruling on defendants qualified immunity defense was immediately appealable holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a trustees claim to immunity was final and appealable under the collateral order doctrine