I am not sure why the parent comment is being downvoted, but for one I'd also like to know why selling insurance requires licensing.
When the vast majority of customers can't tell (even after years) whether they've been had, that creates an unusually strong argument for having someone else check whether the seller is being honest, such as a licensing authority.
(Which is an argument for mandatory auditing, not for licensing. Yes.)
In an ideal world everyone would do the right thing, in the real world some level of bureaucracy and regulation is a necessity.
A bad hairdresser can slice off my ear and a bad cook can poison me.
In finance, it's incredibly easy to make a living by acting in bad faith. You can offer insurance with no serious intention to pay out, and tie up claims in bureaucracy and legal loopholes.
Good regulation should go some way to minimising bad faith actors.
In fact the industry seems quite scammy anyway. But it would be much, much more scammy - to a criminal extent - with no regulation at all.
Both of which require licensing.