Smartphones are a great thing. Just think: With the swipe of a finger you can summon a car to get you to the airport, engage a handyman to fix your gutters or fetch someone to do your laundry. Don't want your in-laws in your face for the two weeks they're in town? No problem! Airbnb's got you covered. Need someone to do your shopping/cleaning/moving/party planning? Taskrabbit is the app for you!

Yep. The on-demand, or shared economy, is here and growing by leaps and bounds. Not convinced? Look at Uber. According to the Insurance Information Institute's Bob Hartwig, the transportation company's valuation in December was more than that of 72% of the S&P 500, and was valued more than Delta Airlines, Kraft Foods, CBS, Macy's, Hilton or Aflac.

Hartwig also points out that the company's $40 billion valuation on $2 billion in earnings "reflect the extraction of resources that would otherwise go to benefits, investments, safety, training" and, yes, workers' comp. Hartwig was one of several speakers discussing the on-demand economy and the potential ramifications for the workers' comp industry at the recent NCCI Annual Issues Symposium.

There are many questions about the 'workers' in this on-demand economy, particularly when it comes to on-the-job injuries. As Hartwig said, "long legislative and court battles lie ahead." What is clear is that it would greatly behoove the workers' comp industry to be proactive and start dealing with the issues being raised before facing potentially cataclysmic repercussions from regulators and/or the judicial system.

Currently, only about 19% of the U.S. population has used the services of an on-demand company. And while only 7% of working-age people are providers in this shared economy, more than half of those familiar with the concept say they could see themselves working in this industry in the next two years. That's a lot of people, especially if they don't have workers' comp coverage.

On-demand companies are an anomaly in the employment world. They are, as Hartwig explained, software-driven marketplaces that position themselves as platforms rather than employers. Essentially, they are brokers that match people with certain needs to those who can provide a service. In the case of Uber, the workers provide their own vehicles. The workers are treated as independent contractors, with no health insurance, overtime pay, unemployment compensation – or workers' comp.

This, of course, begs the question of what happens when any of these workers gets injured. Could they successfully sue the "employer?" Some are already trying.

In a San Francisco case filed in late April, a janitor-by-day-turned-Uber-driver-by-night is trying to sue Uber for the injuries he suffered when his passenger attacked him and slashed his face. His attorney is seeking class-action status and an injunction, damages and penalties. The attorney says Uber has misclassified drivers as independent contractors. Drivers of traditional taxi companies agree and argue drivers for companies like Uber have an unfair advantage.

An attorney pal of mine explained that, at least in some states, it comes down to a balancing test to determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Even if on-demand companies were to win such suits, the time and money spent getting these cases dismissed could become a nuisance on a grand scale.

While those battles are being fought, there are additional concerns worth noting. Workers who are injured on the job could presumably get their medical bills paid through their own health insurance, if they have any. What about their other expenses if they are out of work? Unless they've obtained disability insurance ahead of time, which most probably have not, we as taxpayers could end up footing the bill.

In addition to the potential cost shifting, imagine the scenario of vast numbers of people injured and trying to manage their own care. Say what you might about dysfunction in the workers' comp system, but there is oversight and the vast majority of injured workers get back to work. With no case management of any sort, we could see potentially scores of people falling into the "creeping catastrophic" category — dealing with multiple doctors who don't communicate with one another, a plethora of medical treatments which may or may not be in the patient's best interest, and, of course, taking a variety of opioids and other medications of which each physician may be unaware — easily pushing them into the growing ranks of SSDI cases.

Workers' comp came about more than 100 years ago as a safety net to protect injured workers from financial and personal ruin. Unless we do something soon, we may see state or federal legislators take a knee-jerk reaction to a catastrophic injury of an on-demand worker.