Depends what you mean by "limited liability." If you're talking about the protection from individual liability that the shareholders have, that's not particularly relevant to whether liability should be imposed against the company itself.
If you mean "limited liability" in the sense that, say, federal law caps a company's liability at $75 million for a particular mishap, regardless of what the company's actually responsible for - that's an artificial distortion of the market that socializes the costs and helps privatize the gains. It also encourages unduly risky behavior.
What your post seems to be describing is ordinary negligence law. "Some weird freak accident".....drilling with "all the proper safety nets in place" combined with acts of god, etc., versus cutting corners, violating safety regulations, etc. - well, that's basic negligence law. Limitations of liability are built in, and strict liability situations - while they do exist - are rare. The law, in theory, already places liability on the "cheapest cost avoider," i.e., the party that is in the best position to most efficiently avoid the accident.
Why we need additional artificial statutory caps on liability for the party that should be bearing the expense of the accident, when negligence is involved, is beyond me....